Most liked posts in thread: Thank God!

Isn't that the whole point? Sweden is considered by some to be a modified socialism because their systems "reeks of socialism"? That's why Sweden was brought into this discussion.

You an I just have different feelings towards this. I see no issue with providing well-being for all people. We're all human. You can write me off as a hippy, I don't mind :lol:

His whole situation is weird cause he's not technically a "foreigner" cause he has dual citizenship between here and there...and he doesn't plan on ever leaving so I'd imagine he's gonna be paying into the system. Who knows...

 

Socialism can work at a certain level. I think that level ends somewhere just beyond a nuclear family living in a household. Think of it, within your house you have a common storage area of food, a common storage area of bathing supplies, etc. With few exceptions everyone in the household able to contributes to replenishing these stores, and everyone is allowed to draw from them as needed. See, most of us live in a socialist environment. Now let's look at a room-mate situation. Two unrelated people living in the same household will tend to segregate the food and supplies into what an individual brings into the household is what they use. Failure to do this often results in one of the members of the household consumer more than the other member of the household and an inequity that results in conflict, this Socialism fails in this environment. If the American people were in general willing to sacrifice and go without certain things at the benefit of others I'd almost believe a socialist agenda would have a chance, but the fact that we're all sitting in climate controlled buildings arguing about politics on a website (run for profit) dedicated to a certain, exclusive car while some in this country have no access to any of that (the car, the internet, the climate control, or, you know, food) is somewhat proof that we're not really willing to give up that much.

 

So because some pilgrims couldn't figure it out or "didn't like it" that means you can refute the entire philosophy?

If you ask me the " young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service" sound dense, selfish, and ignorant.

How could you be so blind as to say that it's unfair to have to work in order to feed the children of others? When the fit young men were no longer young, fit men, it'd be those kids that provide for them in return now that they are no longer fit and able. What goes around comes around. That's not to mention that one should feel obligated to care for all humans and do the most that they can to help others.

It's selfish to think "I don't want to work for others unless I receive instant gratification in the form of a personal incentive". If your example is proof of anything, it's that their MORALS were a failure....not their socialistic system. Their incentive could very well be that they were working to provide for the community. One should require no other incentive than knowing they have helped fellow human beings.

 

Again, if anything is to be seen as a "failure" in this example, it'd be the moral abilities of the roommates, not the socialist system.

My senior year, I lived with 5 other roommates. We all agreed that we'd have a fridge that was open to anyone. Whatever beer or food was in there was available to all. It was understood that we all respected each other and if one person was taking more than their share, they would provide more than their share. It worked with zero conflict.