Why Socialism Fails

Reddit.com
Jul. 12, 2010

InfoLib Commentary

America used to be about equal opportunity, not the equal redistribution of wealth. 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.

Freedom on the other hand means a completely voluntarist society in which all services are provided by the free market based off actual demand. To put it another way, imagine if no one payed any taxes and there was no warfare/welfare state wasting trillions on bombs instead of computers, housing, food, and whatever else consumers actually demand. The society would be easily 5-10 times wealthier overall. The poor would be making 100k a year and we'd hear socialists griping even then about the evils of capitalism because the rich are making 100 billion.

In a free society you have to enrich others and provide a service others want in order to make money. Not so with government, all you have to do is lobby for corporate welfare and subsidies etc. or you can just loot the treasury directly like the 2.3 trillion which went "missing" from the Pentagon right before 9/11.

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 (think housing and health care).

There is an idiotic comic which says "Libertarianism is just Anarchy for rich people", despite libertarianism being a form of anarchy (anarcho-capitalism), the idea behind it is libertarianism is some scam for rich people. In reality, libertarianism is just freedom and a society without government coercion. It's freedom and equality and a utopia for all people.

It's a society where there is no upper class who gets to rule over everyone else for their own good. All services would be voluntary and dependent on public support to exist, just as is your local baker, so would be your local private mediation court and your private policemen (who would have to compete endlessly for your support). The only people who should be against it are the corporate welfare pimps who live off government handouts and government subsidies and obviously the federal reserve and their whole criminal cartel. - Chris, InfoLib An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied only a little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied less than what they had. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.

- A post from Reddit.com/r/Libertarian