Socialism is BS. Don't be fooled.

There is nothing wrong with equality as the EFFECT of good policy and tied in with other good effects, but using it as the sole CAUSE of your policy decisions is ridiculously stupid.

If everyone is starving, everyone is equal. Does that mean you have a super wonderful perfect economic system? Of course fucking not.

The communists were tyrants before they even decided to be communist. They knew that if they chose a fallacious ideal like communism they could place "equality" above freedom of speech and human rights once they got into power.

"The people in harge were bad, that's why communism didn't work." is a fucking stupid argument. Of course bad people exist and will get into the government. How old are you? 5? The reason why communism is flawed is because it has little to no safeguards against tyranny. There is no much use complaining about how Stalin lives in opulent splendour whilst your children starve if you are living in a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The founding fathers of the US made Freedom of Speach their 1 priority from day 1, that is why we are a democracy, because not being executed for speaking your mind is a little more fundamental than whatever good would come from handing all your property over to the government.

Remember. With capitalism, EVERYONE WINS! It doesn't matter if some win more than others.

>>15
This can be done entirely without resorting to socialism. Socialism is an ideal not a logical thought out concept, if you wish to utilise one concept which socialists support you do not have to support socialism and drag along their baggage aswell. All you need to do is to support that concept by itself.

>>16
>>18
Of the top 1% only 10% are millionaires and less than 10% of millionaires inherited their wealth. If this still bothers you have you ever given thought to other possibilities? The real problem may lie in taxation. The government wastes money on people who could easily work or earn more for a living but don't due to the disincentive the government gives them through welfare. It also taxes incomes and savings instead of property. People should pay for the services they use because it is fairer on the little man and adds market forces to taxation.


>>18
>>19
>>21
>>24
Assuming you begin with a stable democracy, how can you expect people not to vote socialism out eventually? At most you will get a welfare state like Finland with the diverse economy run by property owners through free enterprise, more likely though you would end up with a political party that keeps people out of poverty for populist reasons but leaves the rest of the economy alone like the UK and Canada.

On a personal note I am going to be firm with you, ladies, gentlemen, as I feel you are refusing to address an obvious and important point I am teaching you. Have you not yet asked why tyrants prefer socialism to libertarianism? Perhaps the heated rhetoric of the minutemen "LIBERTY OR DEATH" compared to the propoganda of marxist thugs "DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT" will clue you in.

Capitalism under tyranny is always going to end badly, just like socialism under tyranny. Though I don't see any tyrants using "capitalism" to get into power. I see democracies preferring capitalism to control the majority of their economy and only using state regulation to control sectors of the economy that can only be a monopoly.