- One, the strongest will prevail.
This is fundamentally true and most importantly, fair. The idea of taking from them to give to those who struggle just decreases the motivation, the quality, the work and the contribution of the succeeders.
- Second, the path of least resistance.
Anyone who gets stuff for free, will not want to work for it in the future. This is valid not (just) for welfare and social aids, but also to "acquired rights" of some working classes that are now (over the years) just attributed benefits automatically, without merit (despite it's existence in previous generations).
I believe it is not fair to take (1/3 is the current approximate rate) from those who work, to give to the (able) ones that do not.
I believe it accomplishes nothing, since there is no merit, no incentive to work, quite the opposite.
Actually, the very reason you think there is a need for a system that takes form those that have, is that people don't want to just "give". So why would someone that gets something for free, give it away to work instead?
Do you believe those that work and pay taxes are "bad people" that do not want to help, so you think the government must force them, and poor people are "nice people" that would work if they could? Are you that naive?
What is worst, is that this system creates grounds for freeloaders, leachers and opportunists that work the system to their profit. Both by not being active and productive (working) or by the corruption and "high level" lobbying. And no, more courts, rules or policing are not the solution. It only adds more unnecessary jobs, paid by the government, more lobbying, more... you get the picture.
"The second you have a government which concerns itself with wealth redistribution is the second your government turns into a tool of corporate conquest and privilege, whoever can game the system best gets all the stolen loot which is supposed to 'help the poor' or whatever other excuse they give. It doesn't work, it never will, and it never has."
You're shocked? This is not "politically correct" and you feel this is "just wrong" and selfish. I understand. I really do.
Facts, life and reality are hard. Made from a very different stuff than ideals and "feelings".
So tell me, even if overtaxing the hard working population to compensate and redistribute wealth to those that "need it" is all very well and nice, and may make you feel all good and warm inside, in reality (as in your Country/community):
- does the help get to the needy?
- to how many "really" needy?
- at what cost, how much is "wasted", "lost", "miss-assigned" or spent in "the process" on the way?
And now I ask you, how many times did you give anything to the needy? And I mean YOU, think about it. When or how frequently do you go out of your way to help someone in need?
When you find you have no use for something, do you give it away, or do you sell it on e-Bay or even trash it?
When there are campaigns to gather food for the (really) needy, do you contribute? Or do you dismiss the volunteers lying about already having given?
Do you do pro-bono or volunteer work anywhere?
Well that is where people should give back, voluntarily, and not vote for liars that say that they'll do it for you and everyone else, in a fair proportioned way.
Because "ideals" make you feel warm inside, you vote for people that say they will take from the rich who have too much, to give to the poor that have little. Because that "feels" fair. But it ist'n really. You're just voting out of guilt of being / living as capitalist.
And by promising (and actually doing) that, is how you win elections (and stay in power) in Europe. And screw the left wing, right wing. Every non-socialist party has a "social agenda" these days. And it's not because it's fair or "right" or "honorable" or "humain", it's because it wins elections.
Current european governments were elected mostly by people who vote for humanitarian social programs while bitching about the ills of capitalism. That feels and makes them feel better, while they actually do nothing or close to nothing "socially" to actually help those in need, or stop acting as capitalist jerks. "You" are basically (though many naively) being hypocrites. Or you just don't vote and complain, and that's pure hypocrisy right there.
And for what do you want to win? Well, democracy in Europe is so roten that in the best case scenario, anyone just wants to win and do good in government, to look good, have a career, be reelected, and/or thrive in the private sector after leaving the government. In the worst case scenario, to freeload, work the system and get rich (or their families, friends and partners, so they don't get caught).
"Socialism is not a way to help the poor, that's just a front they use to get the poor to go along with the government robbing everyone. The poor actually get hurt the most under socialism because goods are drastically more expensive (due to the "rich" being taxed 50%+ on all their income) and all the subsidized industries keeping prices high"
So do I believe in "Libertarianism" (anarcho-capitalism) instead? No. The rich will never voluntarily care for the handicapped, the old, the sick (even their own sometimes). That's the whole point, that's why communism and socialism emerged.
I do believe "public" institutions should care for the handicapped, the old, the sick. Pensions, health and education. And for free, not by paid administrators, secretaries, and other elected or assigned position.
But I do not condone with the path the world is following. Providing for social aids or social housing, or any free stuff to those who are physical and mentally able to WORK FOR A LIVING will be the death of society as we know it.
And yes, unemployment is a problem. But it would be a small(er) one if people would have motivation to work, instead of being paid to stay home.
As in having to work in SOMETHING (even if it's not what you trained for, or if it gets you callous in your hands...) instead of staying home living off of the money of those who actually work for it. And that includes your parents. And here I mean direct leaching, not by taxes.
The cosy feeling of "socialism" and "do-gooding" has fed public institutions and governments to the point they have become a slow, sick, giant "monster" that has to be killed off, the sooner the better.
Either that or one of these days the hardworking, stronger, "rich" libertarian anarcho-capitalists will join up in a New Country of their own. And then, there will be now one to
There are fundamental laws that rule everything and everyone. Believing that beautiful ideals (any thing ending in "ism") will prevail over those and make things better for everyone is naive.
And even if it makes things better for some for a while, it will eventually fail and make things worst for everyone, for a long time.
And I'm not just saying that, it is actually happening... right?
Quotes are from a comment of Chris from infolib :