What are your REAL opinions on socialism and the welfare system?

Ummm... actually, not entirely factual. The "workers" never become the state, as history is replete with examples. The "workers" suffer as their "ownership" is sucked dry by the overhead of their governments. See any current communist government. Social welfare is the cost of competitive disadvantages as a means of coping with it. Which is generally why socialists don't like competition at all, and hence the race to the never found bottom.

 

You've merely referred to cases of failed states that use the tag 'socialist' and made a general comment. That won't wash. Socialist political economy focuses on 'feasible' forms which ensures worker ownership. That typically separates into two approaches: anarchistic and market socialist. The latter has managed to find common ground with Marxists and the Austrian School, highlighting just how high powered it is.

 

I'd be a lot happier with being taxed if I could choose what my taxes do and don't pay for. That's impossible, of course, since the banks actually pay for all the **** no one likes and we're taxed to pay the interest on the loans from the banks...

Whether its socialist or capitalist, its pretty scammy.

 

Show me a success story. Anywhere. Tell us how life is so awesome in China, or Vietnam, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or any of the 10 or so countries in Africa. There are TONS of examples, but not one of which is successful.

 

If you get back your contributions and nothing more than 1) the federal government would be unfunded and 2) there would be no need for federal taxes at all or even state taxes. People would just be taxed by the local jurisdictions and that would be it.

 

Its not about success or failure. It is about feasibility or not. You're referring to situations where there has been revolution, followed by government authoritarianism. That isn't socialism. Now if you wanted to take a Marxist or Schumpeterian approach to the issue, this typically all comes down an evolutionary economic approach (where the success, but its ultimate contradictions, of capitalism lead to socialism).

As a non-Marxist I acknowledge the obvious. Socialism is more efficient, but it is extraordinarily difficult to develop as capitalism is highly effective in maintaining rent.

 

Sometimes, it takes much less time to admit that you don't have an example. It is also dramatically more honest.

 

I would rather just buy a nice size house off some river in the woods and take care of myself. Plant my own food, raise my own livestock. Use solar panels and river power. I would only pay taxes when I need to come into town to buy guns or ammo or batteries or solar panels etc. Things I can't manufacture on my own. The rest of these humans idiots can rely on the government and technology to wipe their ass and work their whole life to prop up a bunch of lazy losers and underachievers. Who knows maybe life on Mars will become more viable soon. I can hop on another Mayflower and leave this mess behind.

 

Sometimes its even better to learn. Feasibility is the key. Looking at non-socialist failures, already neatly attacked by socialists such as Orwell, is a waste of effort.

 

LOL.. Ok, you're not serious. Got it now. I will just point out though that the real world examples are vastly more instructive than ignoring history and fantasizing about something you should simply be able to watch being a failure to stop fantasizing about socialism.

 

And you've been shown repeatedly that this is bunkum and why.

 

Yeah, just look at Commiefornia.

 

Just more ramble. I've informed you that you are referring to non-socialist authoritarianism. Nothing new in that. Orwell and co have referred in detail of the nature of that history. I've then referred to the 2 feasible forms of socialism and also provided an explanation for why, despite being more efficient, they do not develop. If you can't work it out from there, then tough luck

 

Have you? When the Russian revolution happened, and Vlad took power, did the Russians "own" anything? When Mao took the reigns in China, did they suddenly own anything? Your equivocation that these were authoritarian regimes is pretty obvious and a result of the "socialism" itself. In EVERY example, the people were subjugated by their authorities. In EVEry case. The means to become successful were removed unless you became the party. That is the model. Show us the anarchy that you fantasize about. Where has this worked?

 

Round and round you go, saying naff all. I have already referred to the likes of Orwell, who neatly highlighted how socialism and authoritarianism are incompatible.

 

Socialism...horrible...leads to death, poverty, tyrants

Welfare....depends, I have no problem helping people get a leg up...I would prefer that welfare, be done by the private sector, via charity....in particular local ones that have a better understanding fo the needs of the community and can better manage the issue then someone in Washington simply passing out checks because someone meets a legal entitlement.

 

So, it shouldn't be hard then for you to show us a success story. Not what you fantasize about, but a real world example. Not the wishful thinking of it, but an example. Show us.

 

I did not say that. I said you get back proportionally what the Government transfer out to states. So in my original example it would be 0.20 % for the state that pays 11 billion in taxes when 4.8 trillion total is collected. For simplicity if the federal government only transferred $100 to ALL states that state would only get 20 cents.

 

That may be true but when most people scream socialism that is not what they mean. Most view it as government handouts. We speak of things like Obamacare as socialism when it is private.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear of socialism I think of government owning companies and everyone getting paid the same no matter if they work their ass off or take 8 hour coffee breaks

 

I believe greedy corporatism will kill capitalism and bring about socialism

excessive foreign outsourcing and foreign imports has a cost, people need good jobs for capitalism to work

 

American ignorance does not get to reinvent political economy. The 'government=socialism' nonsense is merely derived from abuse of the economic spectrum (from laissez faire to command). Its particularly silly stuff as government is a key element for the survival of capitalism.

 

We already had socialism in this country, it failed miserably

 

when was that?

 

That may be true but you have to work with what you have or we would be stick going nowhere.