Why Does Socialism Always Fail?

Yes it worked better

 

Her country has had socialist medicine for 70 years. But it is going to run out of money any day now. LOL

- - - Updated - - -

As long as we all ride horses. LOL

 

Actually there is evidence it would work as i have shown in addition logic does not need evidence.'

On the other hand the evidence is crushing that socialism does not work.

Libertarians wish to take over nothing but quite the opposite to prevent a take over and stop takeovers

- - - Updated - - -

Infrastructure is infrastructure there is no evidence state roads work better

 

LOL!!! You're the one with no facts, no history, no data!! LOL!!!

Holy chit!! Then tell me who an authority on the subject might be. LOL!!!!! Who wrote more volumes on the subject?

 

Should we adopt libertarian systems in this country if the VAST majority of the people don't want it? Why is there not a SINGLE libertarian politician in congress?

 

Actually the facts and history prove me right and the society they built was one of the bloodiest and most inhuman on earth which pretty much proves my point.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong it is inherently more humane and moral.

Capitalism allows ownership of self socialism demands one cedes said ownership to others which is of course slavery

- - - Updated - - -

You should allow then to be adopted which you will not

- - - Updated - - -

Personal insults are by definition evidence of losing an argument thank you for conceding and admitting you are wrong.

 

Allow them? That is up to the people.

 

You mean the mob

 

Kind of like socialism, from what I hear. But then, even though there some historical examples of stateless legal orders that can be pointed to, all the sound a priori arguments are in our favor, the same ones that are proven right every time we find suitable case study to point to.

 

You would prefer a select few get to decide what kind of system we have? Hmmmmm....what's that called? LOL

 

No merely get out of the way and let people own their lives.

 

Yes. Since libertarian orders do not entail forcible expropriation of anyone by anyone, it is the only justifiable option.

 

This drives me crazy. Please look up the definition of socialism. Then you will see that Canada, Norway, Finland and Belgium are not socialist nations. They use a mixed economic model, which utilizes capitalism with a large commons. The commons is financed by taxation on capitalism.

So an economy that is capitalism with a commons is not socialism It is a mixed model. If you insist on calling this socialism, then you have to also call it capitalism. But to be accurate, calling it a mixed model matches the reality of what is actually going on. These mixed models work, and they yield more secure, happier societies.

Man has lived in civilizations for a few thousand years. With the rise of civilization we saw the creation of the have and the have nots. The rich, the poor. But for at least 50 thousand years, prior to the rise of civilization there were no classes based upon income, or personal resources. What we saw was instead a group effort, a tribal effort, at sourcing the needed resources, not for the individual but for the tribe. For there was safety in numbers, and the tribe was more important than one individual. We evolved under this paradigm. So within our genetics is this group cooperation. The females gathered, the males hunted. But what was gathered and hunted was shared by the group. You did not have some people going hungry and others with full stomachs. So why were these people not personally competitive, so that only themselves, or their families ate, as others went hungry? Yet we are told that man has to be competitive and capitalism is based upon this. We are told that sharing is not in human nature. But for 50 thousand years were these tribal cultures not human? Of course they were. But they were conditioned from birth to cooperate, to work together, to share, so that the tribe survived, not just a few individuals. So, one of the reasons socialism, real deal socialism has failed, is because the people were not conditioned to cooperate, to share, but to the contrary. It is all in the conditioning, which anyone with intelligence would know. So of course if you take a group of people who have been conditioned on individualism, on self centeredness, on selfishness, on competition and you impose socialism on them, it will always fail. The conditioning will corrupt socialism, for if socialism is to ever work, you cannot have people who have been conditioned not to cooperate, conditioned to be selfish, conditioned to compete with others for resources within the group, the society. All that you have to do is to observe hunter gatherer societies, and we have volumes written on these societies by anthropologists going back a hundred years. And compare their values, their beliefs, their conditioning to how the modern world is conditioned. And therein is the answer.

 

Rush always asks the same question; he has plenty of frustrated followers who outsourced their thinking to him....

 

OP, I went through the thread, but could not find your definition of socialism. Please share your exact definition of socialism. Depending on your definition, folks may be able to provide examples of successful socialism.

 

The current system.

- - - Updated - - -

State ownership of the means of production.

 

Uh....that's what we are doing. The will of the people. Should we subvert the will of the people to adopt your system?

- - - Updated - - -

Prove it.....

 

Wrong you are demanding others give themselves over to the mob.

Simply leave them alone.

The " people " have no will only individuals do

 

Even against the will of the people?

 

" the people " have no will.

Only individuals do

 

In this country the will of the people, within the framework of the constitution, is how we decide things. Should we adopt a libertarian system if it is against the will of the people

- - - Updated - - -

You may need to form your own country to get this....because it is not how we do things here

 

According to the constitution it is how we decide representatives an leaders not " things ".

No where does it say people may use the electroral process to enslave others.

- - - Updated - - -

That makes no sense

 

Yes. No group can be justified in forcibly expropriating others, regardless of the size of the mob they comprise.

 

Yes they can in this country. It is in fact the basis of every successful country on the planet

- - - Updated - - -

Our leaders are elected to reflect the will of the people. We don't have a libertarian system because the people don't want it.

 

Stalinist Russia, East Germany, North Korea, Venezuela, where else?..

Yeah, look at China. Then look at the Scandanavian countries and all of western Europe. Or look at Vietnam post America. American-style crony capitalism cannot compete on any level.