Are socialists just trolls?

Sorry if this is the 3rd socialist thread or something, but seriously. It's such a stupid fucking idea I just cannot understand why anyone would agree with it. I'm not one of this 100% capitalist nuts, 100% of anything is usually stupid. I generally agree with Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, who said that capitalism should be taxed to fund the democracy and security services needed to preserve justice and the nation. Welfare is ok if it solves a problem, if someone needs food and shelter to keep them healthy whilst they rehabilitate or if children need to be immunised against polio and tetanus. That's fine. I can imagine a government which ran the economy democratically and people could only start their own business by gaining public support first, but where's the incentive in that? We are individuals, through and throughout. If we were all ants and gained pleasure from the negligible increase in the nation's economy we added, then maybe socialism would work. But this is not the case. No one would pioneer computer science or mechanized industry if their only prospect is more work.

I'm posting this in response to some troll in the pick your society thread.

http://www.world4ch.org/read/newpol/1133820879/43

After citing several examples of how socialism doesn't work if it is implemented by a despotism and that liberty is the defining factor concerning true egalitarianism his reply was as ignorant and apathetic as it could get. I don't think this troll was stupid, I think he was a typical socialist and intelligent, who knew very well that liberty is a good thing, but doesn't care. Much like a rapist might know what he is doing is wrong, but not care.

If anything despotism goes against every value socialists seem to preach, about equality. But things are not going to be very equal if a military dictatorship taxes everyone into slavery and shoots anyone who disagrees, is it?

>>21
Why's it a bad idea? It's like democratic socialism without the big government. It's socialism with MORE democracy, where EVERYTHING is directly decided. I guess it seems counterintuitive; we've been living with heirarchical ideas about society for so long.

Imagine standing on the sidewalk with your friends, deciding what to do with your evening.

* A capitalist decision would have one person holding all the cash, and he decides what everyone will do.

* A democratic socialist system provides some buffers to the capitalist system. A couple more people would decide what to do for everyone (representatives), although the one capitalist who holds the money can influence the decision makers (he can bribe them to make the decision he wants, he can threaten to take his money and go home). However, they'll be a list of good things to choose from (rights to social services).

* A libertarian socialist decision would be the natural one, I would argue, where you and your friends agree on what to do with your pool of cash and the evening ahead of you.

It's probably too much of a leap from capitalism to libertarian socialism, so I agree that strong democratic socialism is a worthwhile goal. But it's by no means clear that it's the final stop. Indeed, social democrats have traditionally viewed democratic socialism as a stop-gap towards a more complete socialism.