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?

>>23
I've got a better way of looking at reality. Imagine 3 escaped convicts on an island. They know if they work together they can find food, build a raft and get off the island and possibly to freedom, but that they can try and kill/subjugate each other and get away with it without consequences.

* A capitalist decision would be an uneasy alliance, they would only get angry when one guy wasn't doing his fair share to get food or help build a raft, but not risk their health by getting angry for no reason.

* A democratic socialist system provides some buffers to the capitalist system. They would sit down and discuss what they are going to do as they would do anyway, except they wouldn't bother getting angry for any reason whatsoever. At first they would do some jobs, but eventually after seeing the others slow down they would aswell. Eventually they would "grow up" and evolve into the capitalist system or get pissed off and revert to the libertarian socialist system...

* A libertarian socialist decision would be the natural one, one night when they are all around the fire, one guy will start a fight with another and beat the crap out of him to assert himself as the alpha. The other 2 would step in line and compete so as not to be the beta. The alpha will order the other 2 to build a raft, only pitching in due to the fact that he constitutes 1/3 of the labour force, but will not over exert himself and will injure the beta in order to assert his dominance. There is a strong possiblity that they will just fight and risk injury, then die of infection in the heat or become divided, take too much time to build a raft, get picked up by the coast guard and sent back to jail.