@Yussuki ₪ it is an indication of what we call a “low trust” society. Immigration, or social programs. Pick one; you can’t have both.

Yes I agree

"Low-trust" society, well said.

Immigration + social welfare incentivizes a parasitical society

One Question. Do you guys believe that the hate against Socialism from alot of well known Americans is justified hate? For example both Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder have claimed that Socialism is Evil. So you guys agree with that?

Do*

Depends on the socialism. You may have good socialism or bad socialism.

Socialism is evil in that it believes the fruit of your labor can be forcefully taken and redistributed.

Babies are fruit of marriages, and don’t doubt for a minute that socialists believe they own that too.

So do you believe that well fare for everyone is evil?

Who believes that ? ^_^

I’m not making any statement

@Edmqnd WellFare doesn’t just happen - it comes at a cost. JP is identifying the cost. If there were unlimited resources, sure.

Buy you could take from the rich and distribute the money equally in that way. Why isn’t that good? Wanting to take bit from those that have to spare and give to those that have nothing?

Now we’re talking proportionality; much more nuanced. Willing to see how much from whom for what reasons you think is good...
Although generally speaking if you don’t earn the fruits of your labor and incentivize laziness, how can that be good?

What if it’s not laziness? What if it’s in capability?

I didn’t determine it is - I simply said incentives laziness. Which is why I’m open to hearing your thoughts on how much, from whom, for whom, for what purpose.

One argument would be that: If you redistribute resources too rapidly, the lower classes lack the skill and ability to grow the new resource and would squander unproductively

Incentivizes*

I’ve already explained from whom, for whom and for what purpose. From the rich, for the poor and to maximize equality.

Maximizing equality is a means to an end.

Too general. I would err on the side of ... you earn the fruits of your labor.

Just maximizing equality for the sake of it is unproductive.

(This comes from a quite egalitarian-viewed guy - me)

Shared resources like infrastructure, Basic healthcare , basic shelters. Keep people alive - I would never propose trying to ‘equalize’ anything.

Easiest way to reach an egalitarian society is letting people choose to share whatever and whenever they like.

High taxes over the rich will prevent them from sharing whatever they have.

In an individual sovereign worldview, the collective is that which manifests from the choices of free humans.

In a collective first worldview, a few people try to speak for the collective, or the terrible aspects of people try to vote for it.

Everyone here should read Animal Farm

Zino that is the answer I want! Just because more equality could be achieved doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better! For example would you rather have a community where the poor get 10% richer evey fifth year and the rich get 10% richer every fifth year or a community where the poor get 10% poorer every third year and the rich get 50% poorer every third year? One option is more equal then the other but but not better for the community (If your goal is minimizing poverty) And for the record I wasn’t making a claim I was playing the devils advocate.

Sure, ofc. We are discussing ideas not ppl

Sure - I understand you were exploring the arguments.

Food time. Brb

@JPMcGlone - do you agree that every society is lead by an elite (a small group of people), no matter if it's individualistic or collectivistic ?

Put equality of outcome at the top of your hierarchy and you will get it, but at the cost of everything else

I don’t even think you will get it. You simply can’t equalize for ‘everything’

@Yussuki ₪ I do not agree with that. America was unique in that we didn’t have to Feudal Lords for a long time. We had redundancy. Families, churches, communities, states.

Now we are becoming a Feudal system

Yes. You didn't have feudal lords. You had slave owners.

Acting feudally.

The incompetent are incentivized to take from the competent, and if we don’t punish the theft, we deserve it

We didn’t always have slaves and not everyone had slaves. Our cities, for instance, were quite free

JP, It's not theft if you consent.

But yes, slavery is terrible. That said, many benefitted from the arrangement