If you look at some of the most successful capitalist in our society, most started from modest beginnings. This class envy argument I find to be high in populism, low on facts. I know a few rather wealthy people that started with much less than what welfare recipients have today.

Humor, I Love It!

And being irrational apparently.

You crack me up! You got the Fox News Republican rap down though! Cuddo's. Let's go piss off some commie liberals!

Humor, I Love It!

That's great, you quote a socialist as some kind of defense.

I suppose those people who made these goods NEVER paid for roads right? Who pays the registration on the trucks used to drive their goods on those roads? The capitalists. Who pays the double taxation on the capital gains used to invest in the company? The capitalists. Who pays the people who pay school taxes to educate children? Capitalists.

Who pays virtually nothing and complains about how much money everyone else has? The socialists.

You act like the idea of socialism is new and cutting edge, when in fact it is a relic of the ancient days of kings and serfs that always inevitably fails in the end under the crushing weight of tyranny, sloth and debt. That is what is so scary and evil about it.

You act like the idea of socialism is new and cutting edge, when in fact it is a relic of the ancient days of kings and serfs that always inevitably fails in the end under the crushing weight of tyranny, sloth and debt. That is what is so scary and evil about it.

If you become an intrepid student of the multitudes of "isms" that have been around and are still coming around, one important point becomes clear. It's that old discrepency between theory and practice. Socialism, Communism, even Christianity are all beautiful on paper. The problems come from the fact that the true nature of these ways of life have never really been wholeheartedly tried. Lots of lip service, no substance.

Next let us consider what should be our arrangements about property: should the citizens of the perfect state have their possessions in common or not? [...]

If they do not share equally enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much. But indeed there is always a difficulty in men living together and having all human relations in common, but especially in their having common property. The partnerships of fellow-travelers are an example to the point; for they generally fall out over everyday matters and quarrel about any trifle which turns up. So with servants: we are most able to take offense at those with whom we most we most frequently come into contact in daily life.

These are only some of the disadvantages which attend the community of property; the present arrangement, if improved as it might be by good customs and laws, would be far better, and would have the advantages of both systems. Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business.

You like making assumptions don't you? You can't make an argument for your beliefs, you just assume facts, like I watch Fox News or that I am a Republican. The fact is, I rarely watch any news shows, I get most of my news from a variety of sources from many slants. I am a Ron Paul Libertarian for the most part. Good luck with assumption based logic, it is working well for you.

If you become an intrepid student of the multitudes of "isms" that have been around and are still coming around, one important point becomes clear: It's that old discrepency between theory and practice. Socialism, Communism, even Christianity are all beautiful on paper. The problems come from the fact that the true nature of these ways of life have never really been wholeheartedly tried. Lots of lip service, no substance.

I can not only make an argument for my statements, I can take you there and show it to you. You apparently don't know anybody without family or friends. Your bullshit doesn't work in the world I know. You are doing a lot of mindless assuming too.

Oh, so because you have no friends or family, the rest of the world is obligated somehow to take care of you by threat of force? I don't know about everyone else but that smells more like bullshit than anything else I have read lately.