Is socialism organized crime?

[Chikombo]

If for example you are someone that wants to get free money from the government, which is financed by taking from rich people.
So you vote for politicians who will do this.

And this makes it possible for you to live an easy life, instead of voting for people who tell you to get a job and then they don't have high taxes, is this system unfair?

Is it like a secret contract between people in the system and socialist politicians, they vote for those politicans so they get power and in return the people in the system gets free money?

 

[Yeah right]

Bro, no!!

Well that’s one weird way of looking like it.

I prefer to view it as, a system has generated enough basic resources where they can be spread out where the burden is lessen or eliminated, to which a citizen can now focus on more things and not be dragged by basic human necessities.

 

[Adam Driver]

Socialism is trash and borderline delusional.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Multiply]

Capitalism without socialism is laughable. Doesn't work without it.

 

[Lightbringer]

The most effective forms of government are mixed-ones. Pure capitalism can be just as bad as pure socialism.

 

[salamander uchiha]

Socialism is theft, sort of. The actual problem is the destruction of the purchasing power of currencies, the rich can take advantage of it because they receive the money first while the poor take the effects of it via inflation. Socialists try to remedy these issues and buy votes by offering you handouts. The problems with that is you become dependant of handouts becoming lazy and a loyal subject. Then you have the issue that the governemnt borrows money in your name so you and your taxes, your children owe the money.

If there was no money printing and everything was tied to gold, world trade would be equal, their would be no reserve currency, no world super power, countries wouldn't be able to build massive militaries, the plunder of the masses wouldn't be possible. There wouldn't be much need for taxes past a wealth tax for the legitimately empoverished. It would play on human greed, a person would rather spend the money than give it to somebody else which'll ensure money flows through tax the economy.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

I mean, those motives are definitely there somewhere, but I think it's ridiculous to paint socialism as though that were its entirety. Because there will always be an amount of people giving money into services they don't like, every government service with a wad of cash behind it could be viewed similarly. I wouldn't look at what descriptors you could assign to it for deciding its worth, but what it actually offers.

The real difference between social nets & other government services is that social nets provide time to the receivers. It could be that people would rather cling onto that time than spend it working, or it could be that people will use that time to keep up with school, for recovering, or whatever. Being poor as shit & surrounded by this, I can tell you in all honesty that the typical poor person is not getting much more than EBT. EBT's biggest exploit is being exchanged for money, and I think something people skimp over is the fact that it's other poor dudes buying EBT. In other words, poor people selling EBT means poor people buying EBT, and poor people buying EBT means a bit of their money(50$) is turned into a larger sum of money(100$) that can only go towards food/snacks rather than anything insidious. The sellers of EBT who apparently didn't need it end up becoming a benefit to those who do.

EBT is still given while working as well, just a smaller portion though depending on how much income your job is raking in. The only jobs that a person could possibly reject for EBT has got to be the incredibly shit ones, the ones that people say time and time again cannot support a person.

The largest sum of money comes from where it's needed most and that's disabilities & housing children. People can definitely fake both of these, but I DON'T believe people would treasure the measly & risky source of income as if it's some golden lifestyle or that the help it provides is outweighed by fraud. The biggest offenders I know wish better on the next person.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

So basically, is government organized crime?

Crime is breaking the law. The government establishes it. Government is a monopoly on force, and socialism to a greater extent.

 

[Aim64C]

Behind every law is the death penalty. If you do not pay your taxes, a government lien is placed on your property and/or accounts. These things can be frozen and seized. Armed people will show up to enforce the edicts, and any attempts to ignore them or remove them will be met with force by them - as well as likely detainment. Continuing to escalate the situation results in, effectively, death.

From the smallest fine to the greatest capital offense - each is simply a means of appeasing the force of law in lieu of the death penalty. Because laws are supposed to be set by the citizens of society, the idea that everyone showing up outside your house and killing you because you didn't pay them enough for the right to live in your home without them killing you is argued as just. The ability to accept punishments less than death on your part makes them even more righteous in their course and obscures the true nature of law.

Thus - the question comes down to: "What laws are so important that breaking them must be enforced up to and until the death penalty for disregarding the concept of law, itself?"

If someone believes that it is the responsibility of a farmer in a field to yield, to the citizens of a nearby town, the produce from his harvest under the penalty of law... then they are effectively saying that it is right and just for a group of people to declare themselves a lawful government and to, then, set out upon the lands around them and promise death to those who do not give them the fruit of their labor. They can argue their righteousness by saying they gave the farmers polished stones in exchange - but when the farmers are not free to decline the exchange or negotiate a higher exchange, then the whole ordeal is a farce.

This strikes back to "what is a lawful government?" Who decides what range it should exist within? How would one go about challenging the legal right of a lawful government to reign over them?

Perhaps governments... as we know them... are due for a re-thinking, entirely. Perhaps 'law' should be re-thought, considerably, as well as the very notion of 'citizen." But that is a long way away, yet.

 

[Multiply]

Behind every law is the death penalty. If you do not pay your taxes, a government lien is placed on your property and/or accounts. These things can be frozen and seized. Armed people will show up to enforce the edicts, and any attempts to ignore them or remove them will be met with force by them - as well as likely detainment. Continuing to escalate the situation results in, effectively, death.

From the smallest fine to the greatest capital offense - each is simply a means of appeasing the force of law in lieu of the death penalty. Because laws are supposed to be set by the citizens of society, the idea that everyone showing up outside your house and killing you because you didn't pay them enough for the right to live in your home without them killing you is argued as just. The ability to accept punishments less than death on your part makes them even more righteous in their course and obscures the true nature of law.

Thus - the question comes down to: "What laws are so important that breaking them must be enforced up to and until the death penalty for disregarding the concept of law, itself?"

If someone believes that it is the responsibility of a farmer in a field to yield, to the citizens of a nearby town, the produce from his harvest under the penalty of law... then they are effectively saying that it is right and just for a group of people to declare themselves a lawful government and to, then, set out upon the lands around them and promise death to those who do not give them the fruit of their labor. They can argue their righteousness by saying they gave the farmers polished stones in exchange - but when the farmers are not free to decline the exchange or negotiate a higher exchange, then the whole ordeal is a farce.

This strikes back to "what is a lawful government?" Who decides what range it should exist within? How would one go about challenging the legal right of a lawful government to reign over them?

Perhaps governments... as we know them... are due for a re-thinking, entirely. Perhaps 'law' should be re-thought, considerably, as well as the very notion of 'citizen." But that is a long way away, yet.

Agreed.

 

[Aim64C]

Agreed.

.... It's a trap?

lol

Personally, I have been working on a sort of 'risk-pool anarchy' idea. Since governments largely operate as shared risk and prevention pools with many public utilities and other such things - I have begun wondering if an arbitrary government is necessary.
In history, when people expanded out beyond the reaches of classic government enforcement systems, insurance companies acted to fill the void - hiring bounty hunters to track down people who posed a risk to life/property, building supply lines, offering safety/security information/standards, etc. It wasn't 'perfect' as much of the world during those times accepted brutality far more readily than current societies do - but in principle, insurance companies led the way before cities and states formed in the U.S. territories and in many other regions around the world.

There is a key advantage of this in the concept of force and law. Only those things which are damaging to the property or represent an increased risk to others would be targeted for action by insurance companies. If I am a member of x insurance company, and I get drunk and wreck my car into the house of a person under y insurance company - then our insurance companies negotiate the incident and my insurance company adjusts my rates and/or begins to intervene to protect themselves from risk. Those not in a risk pool who cause incidents can be placed on black lists - people who neither contribute to a risk pool, nor keep their nose clean. A sort of 'bad creditor.' The person isn't imprisoned for not paying taxes or deprived of existing property - but can be given unfavorable terms in some contracts or completely barred from businesses who take such lists - or the offenses of those on them - seriously.

In theory - it works out okay until people decide to agree to arbitrary systems of authority, since that seems to be where human beings are most comfortable thinking. But, I also haven't war-gamed the idea very well against various ideas of "how would one manipulate this system as an individual, or as a business/asset holder?" I like the idea that most force becomes economic in nature, and does not necessarily include the power to seize property from a person - no "renting" from the government in the form of property tax... but it's so radically different from much of what we have in place that it's difficult to project what avenues would be the first to be exploited by the inevitable attempts to corrupt it.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

.... It's a trap?

lol

Personally, I have been working on a sort of 'risk-pool anarchy' idea. Since governments largely operate as shared risk and prevention pools with many public utilities and other such things - I have begun wondering if an arbitrary government is necessary.
In history, when people expanded out beyond the reaches of classic government enforcement systems, insurance companies acted to fill the void - hiring bounty hunters to track down people who posed a risk to life/property, building supply lines, offering safety/security information/standards, etc. It wasn't 'perfect' as much of the world during those times accepted brutality far more readily than current societies do - but in principle, insurance companies led the way before cities and states formed in the U.S. territories and in many other regions around the world.

There is a key advantage of this in the concept of force and law. Only those things which are damaging to the property or represent an increased risk to others would be targeted for action by insurance companies. If I am a member of x insurance company, and I get drunk and wreck my car into the house of a person under y insurance company - then our insurance companies negotiate the incident and my insurance company adjusts my rates and/or begins to intervene to protect themselves from risk. Those not in a risk pool who cause incidents can be placed on black lists - people who neither contribute to a risk pool, nor keep their nose clean. A sort of 'bad creditor.' The person isn't imprisoned for not paying taxes or deprived of existing property - but can be given unfavorable terms in some contracts or completely barred from businesses who take such lists - or the offenses of those on them - seriously.

In theory - it works out okay until people decide to agree to arbitrary systems of authority, since that seems to be where human beings are most comfortable thinking. But, I also haven't war-gamed the idea very well against various ideas of "how would one manipulate this system as an individual, or as a business/asset holder?" I like the idea that most force becomes economic in nature, and does not necessarily include the power to seize property from a person - no "renting" from the government in the form of property tax... but it's so radically different from much of what we have in place that it's difficult to project what avenues would be the first to be exploited by the inevitable attempts to corrupt it.

Does the current system of authority bother you that much? I feel it's more in line to the way people work. Even our religions are centered around authority like that.

I guess it's cool that you're thinking outside the box though. Plus I don't think hiring bounty hunters for threats to others is really that different.