redbloodedamerica:

redbloodedamerica:

Why Socialism Sucks

Now, here’s why socialism sucks – if everyone is forced to finish a race at the same time then the entire race has to be run at the speed of the slowest runner. But you say, “but socialism means the fastest people go back and carry the slowest ones over the line.”  But like it or not, people do not behave that way.  And I can prove it.  If you’re one of those people who call themselves a ‘socialist’ then you should take your iPhone and you’re X-Boxes down to a pawn shop, collect the cash, and distribute the money to the homeless. Some people are all about wealth redistribution when the wealth is being distributed to them; but when it’s time to redistribute their own wealth, they’re rock-rip capitalists.  The fastest runners do not go back and carry the slowest ones and if they’re forced to do so they simply do less work and slow down.

Why run as fast as you can when the faster you go, the more weight you have to carry?

Why study like hell for 15 years in order to become a brain surgeon when you’re just going to get the same paycheck, the same house, and the same car as a barista at Starbucks?  You bust your butt for 15 years studying for your entire youth and most of that work gets taken away from you by force to pay someone who doesn’t but get high and play video games all day?  That’s fair?

Socialism doesn’t turn baristas into brain surgeons, socialism turns brain surgeons into baristas.

Bill Whittle is really describing redistributionism, aka Bernie Sanders’ brand of “democratic socialism” and not Marxist socialism, but you get the point.

@ms-scarletwings said:

We want equal opportunity, not equal outcome you soggy ham sandwhich.
Stop trying to conflate the socialism most of us are arguing for with communism.  We’re not saying everyone should finish the race at the same time, we’re saying in order for the race to be fair everyone should START at the same line.
Take this strawman bullshit elsewhere.

So, one must wonder what magical version of socialism is going to give the kind of permanent “equal opportunity,” which you are particularly clamoring for, to everyone?  Because if four people were to even theoretically start off with the exact same opportunities and resources inevitably some people are naturally going to prosper while others will naturally fail.  This is because people are different.  That is the point of this video. 

But it sounds like your brand of radical egalitarianism is to say whether some people fail your original “equal opportunity” experiment by creating natural inequality of success then we should ignore this outcome and keep repeating the experiment on the next generation and then the next generation ad infinitum.