1. Man has an inherent need for competition. When he sees another person living a bit better, he wants to do as well if not better. Competition brings about improvement, for the most part. Evolution is a pretty good example. Socialism is anti-competition. How can a man improve himself when he must be as equal as his neighbor? If everyone is equal, you will never know how crappy your life is because there would be no comparison. Everyone's lives would be crappy.

2. If everyone is paid the same, then why spend the time and effort learning to be a doctor, when you can spend far less to be a farmer, a garbage man, or a factory worker? You end up with lots of factory workers and very few doctors.

3. To enforce this 'equality', you need a strong, iron-fisted government. This creates a hierarchy, which is what socialism is against. Bit of a paradox. It needs a hierarchy to destroy a hierarchy.

Can't be done!

But I understand what you're saying. And to a Point, I agree.

For example, most safety labels protect stupid people. (labels at McDonalds..."Coffee is hot", labels on a laptop "If screen breaks, don't drink liquid crystal")Thus, by creating safety labels, we are preventing survival of the fittest from functioning properly, slowing down evolution.
This is the basic line of reasoning behind the "Darwin Awards"
On a more serious level, with modern medicine, people with many serious diseases are living and passing on their genes, wheras in the past they would have died out. This also technically slows down evolution.

The problem (besides the moral implications of allowing Darwinism to occur properly) is the disturbing connotation...probably not the right word...link(?) with eugenics.

Point two: Yeah....hence the standard stereotypical views of welfare mothers and such. Its a valid point.
But on the other side, it also assumes that there's no moralistic or intellectual benefit to being a doctor. Or on a more basic level, "It's more fun to be a doctor"

Point 3. *shrug* This paradox is inherent throughout any society, not just socialism. For example: In order to eliminate hate-crimes, we have to take a hard-line against any advocates of hate literature (racism, sexism, whatever) or what not. But by doing so, we essentially commit hate-crimes against the original perpetrators.

But the final line is, communism is great for robots, but it doesn't work for humans, because humans essentially suck the llama's ass. (As a group, we're selfish, greedy, power-mad...I'm surprised that any of us ever get along)

"Thus, by creating safety labels, we are preventing survival of the fittest from functioning properly, slowing down evolution."

Can't argue with that.

Not that I'm arguing that the dumb deserve to die, mind you. Just that if there weren't warning labels, people would actually have to THINK about what they do.

But for both Mucus and Tahna, this isn't communism. It's socialism. Communism is completely impossible, as it requires that there be no government whatsoever. While I'd dearly love that situation, a government is required for human civilization. Socialism, on the other hand, is where the government controls EVERYTHING. While they both supposedly have the same objective, they're really polar opposites.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

Ok, so I try to defend that very institution and its healing powers in the Cuba thread, but I'm obviously wrong. But when Jay hints that there's something wrong with the concept, it suddenly becomes an a priori fact? I give up.

Socialism ala Marx?
Utopian socialism?
"Real world" socialism?

Also, we realize that "survival of the fittest" is an outdated maxim, yes? That the actual engine for evolutionary change is "survival of the horniest"? That darwinism no more endorses beating up blind children than Santa Claus does?

Well, when there are resources to be competed for, at least.

"If everyone is equal, you will never know how crappy your life is because there would be no comparison. Everyone's lives would be crappy."

That's a rather pessimistic way of looking at it.

"If everyone is paid the same, then why spend the time and effort learning to be a doctor, when you can spend far less to be a farmer, a garbage man, or a factory worker?"

Being a farmer isn't that easy. However, all three of those occupations aren't terribly interesting. Being a doctor is probably more fufilling.

"You end up with lots of factory workers and very few doctors."

Well, that's how it is today, or at least was until recently.

"To enforce this 'equality', you need a strong, iron-fisted government"

Strong, sure, but iron-fisted?

I suppose the question is not whether or not it is a paradox, but whether or not it exists and explaining from that point WHY it doesn't work.

Sorry, very sleepy right now, can't think, gotta sleep..... sleep..... sleep.....

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

quote:

---

Socialism requires that the government own everything

---

That is utter gobshite. Anybody with so much as a high school level government course could tell you this just isn't true. You might as well say that "Conservatism requires that government enforce only criminal law and that the rest of society be run by laissez-faire capitalism"

*sighs*

What do they teach you in the South, anyways? Gun ownership 101, Creationism 120 and Single-minded-constitutional-interpretation 200?

Communism does not exist. It has never existed. It will never exist. It requires that there be no government whatsoever, and such a situation would deteriorate into anarchy almost immediately.

Socialism is a situation in which an all-controling government tries to enforce equality. It can never do so, because anyone running an all-controling government will become corrupt. Aside from stated goals, and the fact that neither can be accomplished, this has very little to do with communism.

Both have laudable goals. Neither can be accomplished due to human nature. Communism can not even be attempted. Socialism can be, has been, and it has fallen apart each time, usually screwing everyone along with it.

Basically, any situation in which the government has more power than it needs is BAD.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

And no, it will not work in our world because we haven't evolved that far.

------------------
"See, for a Republican, a heart is like an appendix. It's nice to have it, but you don't really need it."