Aug
03
How to Explain Why Socialism Doesn’t Work in One Sentence…
ByWhen you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
* I believe I first encountered an expression similar to the above in an Ayn Rand novel.
Click the link at the end of this sentence for a more in-depth explanation of why socialism doesn’t work.
9 Comments
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Another one-sentence way to describe socialism’s weakness.
When it comes to “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” who gets to decide what those abilities and needs are?
August 20th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Socialism works fine as long as there is Capitalism to pay for it, but sooner or later, Socialism runs our of other people’s money.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Another one…
If you keep coming to get my money to give it to those who you feel need it more than my children, I’m going to start shooting holes in your $$$.
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:36 am
Socialism is like cancer,it starts out slow and weak. then it grows until it totally wipes out the host it invaded!
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:38 pm
The Founding Fathers created government to provide Justice, not fairness.
August 30th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Socialism would only work if there were a uncorrupt and perfect person in charge, and the last time I checked humanity was rather short on those.
And by perfect I mean in judgement, fairness, mercy, justice, understanding.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Socialism is Like sharing chocolate. You even it out yet you need Money in the First place to Purchuse the chocolate.
November 29th, 2009 at 2:10 am
Well, What about those who bust their @$$ working day in, and day out, and have done so for many of years, and don’t get anything? Last time I checked, Fairness was the same as equality, and I think a Socialist country like, oh, I don’t know, Europe, would greatly improve our lives. No, not at first. It takes time. kinda like most things in life. but I guess people want an imperfect solution today, rather than making a better tomorrow. Oh, and Mister Lou, Yeah, if you have a few healthy, nothing wrong with them children, I don’t have a problem with taking money from you to help pay for another child who has cancer with a mother who works two jobs and can’t even afford to pay rent AND put food on the table. But you’d rather have them go through a private school, away from the “other” society, right? Well, don’t worry, your children won’t be exposed to the evils of socialism, and you can put them through collage, and good ol’ Johnny gets to die from cancer. Less competition for your kids! Woohoo!
November 29th, 2009 at 11:12 am
If they are getting nothing they would just quit busting their ass. You must mean that they don’t get as much as YOU would like them to.
Last time I checked it was not.
Europe is not a country. It’s interesting how some people who comment here argue that countries IN Europe are not socialist. And socialism hasn’t greatly improved lives in Europe. They still have poverty, high unemployment, high cost of living, would all be enslaved by the Soviet Union if it weren’t for U.S. military spending, and like here, constantly run budget deficits that will eventually become unsustainable, forcing them to cut back on social spending. That last bit is already happening. They are cutting down on social spending, while here in the U.S. we’re working on increasing it.
Who is Mister Lou? Do you have cable TV and a computer? I demand you give those up and give the money to a homeless person. You are too wealthy! Why should you have those things while others are starving! It’s easy for YOU to not have a problem with MY stuff being taken away. In that case I have no problem with stuff being taken away form you. Give it up at once!
And besides, wealth redistribution policies never work out as intended. For reasons why, see this page: http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/