Why is it that everyone that wants socialism

Troll behavior is characterized by two behaviors: do not acknowledge any logical error committed (in this case Reductio ad absurdum), and double down by committing yet another fallacy, Proof by Assertion--your logically fallacious claims will be so no matter how many times you repeat them.

Besides, Marx was a communist, and rejected socialism as too piecemeal. LOL!!

In order to "match" the number of people killed by socialism--as you argued--one has to know both the number of people killed by the Black Death, and the number killed by socialism as you claim.

This is a fascinatingly deviant version of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, called "absence of evidence," since you provide no statistics of either counts: these statistics are unknown--and with the passage of history, likely unknowable.

 

Acknowledge your logical error then.

I can wait.

 

More to the point ..... the average junior Commie, Marxist, Socialist Prog, etc hates this kind of social responsibility conformity more than anyone alive ... yet they're the ones demanding the very systems which absolutely depend upon it. Socialism and/or Communism. Hilarious!

 

Interestingly, the word "idiot" comes from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs 'a private person, or individual', and idios meaning 'private', 'one's own'. If a Greek citizen did not participate in a vote or other community affairs--he was an idiot.

 

You're wrong about just poor people who don't contribute want socialism. People who work for the government in some form or another love the government. A welfare case worker probably hates the people who they have to help, but they also know that without them, they're going to have to get a real job. Then there are the people with good private sector jobs, but still love the government. I think for them, they look at social welfare programs as a barrier against poverty.

A market facing job is scary. If you're making 200k a year, you seriously can't lose that job. There are people who commit suicide because they've had to make do with only 100k. The government will be there for them! All you have to do is look at that huge obama camp full of homeless people living in tents with a few shopping carts full of clothes parked alongside their tents, and you're going to want uncle Sam to be there to make sure that doesn't happen to you.

I was in Berkeley just the other day and saw a political sign for a mayor or somebody that had the slogan "affordable housing is a right!". The people who live there know their houses are worth a lot of money, but they also know that they can lose it all with one emergency. Then they'd be out on the street with their family rooting through garbage cans looking for whatever it is that homeless look for in garbage cans.

 

True, in fact and practice!

The overgrown babies hate to do the conformity thing. Which is why so many overgrown babies end up living in tents, I guess.

 

If you're making $200k, but living on $30k, you can indeed lose that job. Further, that extra $170k per year is the buffer you build against 'emergency'.

 

How many people actually do that? I know a few who live well below their means, but most people get used to living a certain way, and even if they're making 200k a year, a 25% reduction in pay would force them to make serious changes.

I guess both sides are worried about hitting the streets, but we have different ways to mediate against that possibility. Lefties use the government and insist that social security is going to be around forever. Righties look at non-governmental backup plans like gold or bitcoin because we know that as far as governments go, the USA is one of the oldest in the world, and going to fiat currency is a huge red flag that is impossible to ignore.

When the poo hits the fan, lefties are going to demand that uncle Donald be there to protect them, while righties are going to be breaking into their stash of gold coins, only to find out that they're almost worthless because everybody hoarding it now will be spending it later.

 

I check out a San Francisco apartment I lived in about thirty years ago that rented for $450 per month that included utilities and trash disposal. Today, that exact same apartment costs $2,000 per month. I don't even go to SF anymore--it costs $20 per hour just to stand there. Landlords are ripping off high wages from young tech workers so bad that they can't even afford to live in SF. Rents are driving up the cost of living which forces wages to up eventually.

There was a recent report $100,000 is ‘Low Income’ In Parts Of Bay Area
After paying state and local taxes, transportation costs (like parking), a car to get to BART, riding Bart from the east bay is about 200 per month, insurance, food (extremely expense), rent, internet connection, and phones--a worker is really living on about $20K per year. And the prices are still going up. AT&T Park sells hot dogs for $10 and beer for $19.25 a 22 oz. cup.

I am retired now, and calculated that I am living on the same amount of money as when I was working full time at a database software company. I couldn't afford to work in SF!

Meanwhile, Tweeter's SF HQ pays no taxes to SF for 8 years. For decades, Wells Fargo Bank paid, even now, no property taxes at all (no more personal info from me).

SF is like New York now, except SF has the highest rents in the world.

This is an old story. In Britain during 1865, previously self-sufficient peasants were forced off rural lands into the cities where the factories where. This migration flooded the towns with people looking for work creating a housing shortage. The rents skyrocketed and housing speculation was brutal.

[Public Domain, Not Copyrighted]

Every way you could be F***ed--including high finance-- a historical example can be found in Das Captial.

 

That's the beauty of not living in Venezuala under socialism..

 

That's the beauty of having socialism like social security.

 

The San Francisco Bay Area and the rest of the USA is full of people living under highway overpasses.

 

Why don't they migrate to a socialist country?

Lol!

 

Why don't Free Market Fundamentalists go to that Libertarian stateless paradise of Somalia?

 

cause theyre lazy pot heads with 100k student loan debt and a degree in White Male Hatred.

 

From my perspective, only an idiot DOESN'T do that. Perhaps not earning $200k and living on $30k, but certainly when we've earned big money, we didn't spend a dime over 50% of it. The point is not to get used to living a certain way, until you can genuinely afford to live a certain way. A good salary is not a ticket to live it up, because it can be gone at any moment. 'Genuinely afford' means you have the means to pay for that lifestyle independent of your salary. That's the point of spending way less than you earn .. so that you will eventually be independently wealthy enough to live the lifestyle.

 

No matter how much money I earned, I always lived like a poor college student. It's not just how much you earn, but how much you keep.

 

Those two questions of who should emigrate to where is why we're on the verge of a civil war. One side is willing to fight for their freedom and the other is fighting for their lives.

Without socialism, they die. Without freedom, we might as well be dead.

 

Now that is clever. I have been waiting for an Enthymeme which is Greek for ἐνθύμημα, enthumēma meaning "a thought" and is a merely a rhetorical syllogism. This is an argument in which there are missing premises.

Its logical argument form is the following:

Without socialism you will die.
[Missing premise]
[Missing premise]
++++++++++++++++++
Without freedom, we might as well be dead.

The missing premises are respectively, "Socialism is death," and “If you are a socialist, you are unfree." Also, you have not establish the truth value of any premise.

-S > D
S > D (missing premise)
S > -F (missing premise)
++++++++++++
Therefore: -F > D

However, from your argument one could also conclude both:
[(-S > D) * (S > D)]
And derive,

-D > -S [Transposition]
-S > D
+++++++++++
Therefore: -D > D [Hypothetical Syllogism] and [Destructive Dilemma] Which says ‘If you are not dead, then you are dead'! which is a contradiction reductio ad absurdum.

and therefore,

S v -S [Destructive Dilemma] Which says 'either one is a socialist, or not a socialist.'

Which is a mere tautology like "Either it will rain, or it will not rain."

You are a genius!!!

So excuse me while I go wipe my butt.

 

Probably more than 90% of the people that claim to like socialism expect the government will give them something for nothing. Probably closer to 100% contribute very little to the government.

 

I love how you guys make a claim but don't back it up with any kind of evidence whatsoever.

 

You rightly conclude that I was not making an argument. I made a statement that could be either true or false as a way of pointing out why we're at loggerheads. That's not an argument, so trying to point this out is perfectly fine.

Freedom is worth fighting to the death for
Socialists hate freedom
Therefore, those who value freedom are willing to die for their freedom by killing socialists.

Fair enough? You can disagree with either of those premises, but I think the conclusion is logically sound.

 

You did make an argument and it is called an enthymeme. And your second argument is worst than the first because it can't be sound if even 1) one premise is false, 2) contains an contradiction, and 3) missing premises of which you don't even know what they are.

 

yet you fail to explain why...

ho-hum.

I do have to commend you on your attempt at symbolic logic. It's something I've not come across here before. However, you have the basic idea of logic wrong, which is that there are set of statements (premises) that were used to develop a very basic logical argument. You can disagree with either of my premises, but I do note with some humor that you refuse to do so.

Try again?

 

The burden of proof is on you (onus probandi) since you presented the arguments. Any logician familiar with "baby logic" would know you committed the logical fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

X is claiming Y, which requires justification.
X demands that Questioner justify the opposite of Y.
Questioner’s instead demands X provide the justification for Y.
_______________________________
Therefore, Y is true.

If a basic logical argument contains a contradiction, it is non-nonsensical because from a contradiction any conclusion whatsoever can be derived. So I disagree with your unsubstantiated premises and it's fallacious logic.

Many, many people are reading these posts. Please don't embarrass yourself.