Taking Wealth From Those Who Work Hard

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from (i.imgur.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

When we work towards that end and it is taken from us to support others who do not that is a crime. It is a travesty.

The US is a self-funding corporation. Yup. They can literally annul debts tomorrow.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

This is a supremely nonsensical view of money. Though technically they can zero all debts, the ramifications would be catastrophic. So, no, they can't just annul all debts.

And this claim, true or not, makes no difference to my argument. No one in a country that takes away the products you create and redistributes them has anyone left making products within a few years. It has nothing to do with debt, or money. If I have all my tomatoes that I plant taken away this year I will not plant any next year. This is why they all starve. This is why socialist/communist countries that can feed themselves before they transitioned end up having to import food and ration it to the point of desperation.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

They can if they want and the ramifications would not be terrible if they did it to boost the economy again.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

This is entirely incorrect. They always give the rich 100x more than they give to poor. Bailouts are grand larceny and everyone salivating over a few thousand dollars and ignoring the tens of trillions that is printed for the bankers is an absolute moron. This is an excuse for redistribution of actual assets into the hands of the rich and powerful. And NO, bailouts are NOT capitalism, they are socialim. This is exactly what causes all socialist currencies to collapse. The ramifications are horrible. People eating their own kid horrible.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Bailouts are not socialism, lol. They are simply taking wealth from the majorty and giving it to an elite minority. Socialism = the means of production is owned by the workers, that is it. Bolshevism was not socialism.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You're right, if you stick with the lie that the definition of socialism is what socialism is. Like I said before, your definition is just the way it is sold. The reality is that worker owned business is possible, and arguably only possible, under capitalism. Anyone trying to convert a capitalist society into a socialist one has only redistribution on their agenda. They don't want the workers to own their own businesses, they want the workers to revolt against the government so the socialist can seize power. The useful idiots are sold this plan by being told that they will be GIVEN SOMEONE ELSES' BUISNESS. The entire scheme is based on redistribution, which is exactly what bailouts are except the money flows in the other direction.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

A worker owned business is socialism; it probably cannot exist under communism or Fascism but could under anarchy, a Christian monarchy and Capitalism.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Under anarchy the small will be eaten by the big. The worker owned will be out competed, and destroyed by the top down run competition because it is far more efficient. Under monarchy it is whatever the king wants. If you have a good king you are golden, but if you have shit king it is the same as communism. The king and his court own everything, it differs from communism only in name and propaganda. Capitalism is the only way.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Anarchy implies no state corporation. Anarchy can work if Christ and his principals are met. Any ism can work under Christ accept Marxist Leninism w/ Militant Atheism.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Anarchy is an unstable power vacuum. The strong will always conquer the weak. Anarchists want to twist their system into something that approximates democracy, but they don't want to call it democracy because they want to pretend they invented something new.

What anarchy actually means is that there is no law that I have to follow if I don't want to follow it. It relies on voluntary cooperation. As soon as you bring up all the ways in which people can benefit by not cooperating the non aggression principal goes out the window and suddenly they invent some kind of pseudo government to take care of the problem. But because it is a "democratic" government that makes it different. The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

redistribution on their agenda.

That's fine, considering the biggest billionaires are subsidized and welfare queens anyway. As long as it is done non-violently and by Christian means. But Catholics know that such can only occur when the FED notes with interest cease to exist. A system where the government prints its own money free of interest where their subjects (citizenry) are used as collateral is when the standard of living will increase for all.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's not a lie. Sure, if you want to go right-wing lexicon Zionism, then yes... socialism is the devil incarnate but not if we export it as communism to goyim.

Like I said... Using the state through violence.... that IS COMMUNISM. Voluntary Christian socialism is another form that sticks to its true definition.

We all know Anti-Semitism was hijacked by Zionists and now it means anti-Jew. The problem is Arabs and Palestinians are Semitic so they literally stole this word and made it their own.

I talked to a Zionist Jew at a Uni awhile back and he literally said socialism is inherently bad because the state redistributes the wealth to the poor.

Now that is not really socialism in its definition but the Zionist thinks so. That is simply redistribution of wealth and they might not even be workers.