What is wrong with socialism ?

>I've just finished to buy my fees for a master degree and I've just paid 15 € and I have Freel healtcare, free library and free sports


Check mate

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2015/04/07/nyregion/at-success-academy-charter-schools-polarizing-methods-and-superior-results.html?_r=0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Free education itself is not socialism, as its not free healthcare. At most they can be called socialist policies. Its just stupid bipolar burger outlook where there are just two modes, totally free market and planned economy, while most countries fall inbetween

>paying out the ass in taxes so a bunch of retarded niggers can get useless degrees, lowering the value of college degrees
>free

>free

>I've just finished to buy my fees for a master degree and I've just paid 15 € and I have Freel healtcare, free library and free sports
And now you'll pay out of that lovely shit Master's degree salary for your country to build more housing for the shitskin migrants stuck in your country while the Riviera becomes one huge migrant camp. Socialism is just another way that one class can steal from another. You'll love it when you get tons of free shit but it's not so nice when you're being taxed 70% for shit you don't even use while your government gives handouts to people who flock to your country for free shit. Socialism isn't maintanable or realistic. Enjoy the Burkini!

Also
>Library
>Sports
You don't need to be taxed $2k a year to buy a fucking kindle and a soccer ball, fag

The fact that you think it's free is the big problem, someone has to pay for that shit, and it's obviously not your jobless ass.

If I wasn't taxed, the years of University will cost me 12 K €

Sup Forums BTFO

So instead of taking out a loan with a bank, you took out a loan with the government.
You realize that just because the government pays for something, that doesn't make it cheaper, right?

Highest taxes in Europe dumbass.

>Socialism is just another way that one class can steal from another.

>steal from another

unlike capitalism

oh wait

socialism requires force to be implemented, therefore it is inherently immoral.

not, it is not a loan

you are not personally accountable in this case
the debt and risk is spread across all society, resulting in higher standard of living for all

you do not have interest here and it is not a cancerous ball and chain around your personal neck

it is indeed a ball and chain, but on society, and not cancerous like in the USA, and much smaller than one would get here

> that doesn't make it cheaper, right?

yes, it does, as you dont have a whole industry of middle mean debt corporations getting rich

imbecile

so does capitalism, hello?

Implementing force under all circumstances is immoral?

juden

>free

p.s.
>immoral

subjective

>Free

Nothing in this world is free.
"Free" in socialist terms means "more taxes"

Nothing, I agree with the majority of it and with a lot if Bernie Sanders. However, socialism will never work without the nationalism. The problem with socialism is its done on an international scale and puts globalism and other countries first, we can have socialism but we can't have the globalist aspect of it or we will go broke. We also can't have open or lax borders, allowing ever single poor person from other countries in will bankrupt us, we simply can't afford to give free shit out to everyone. That's why I'm voting Trump, looking at his lifelong beliefs he supports things like universal health care and a higher min wage, but he is also super nationalistic and won't allow Mexicans to overrun us and shit up our country.

capitalism, ideally only relies on voluntary transactions.

unless it is to prevent great harm, yes.

I would say that forcing someone to pay for something they do not agree with under threat of imprisonment is immoral.

What's wrong with vikingism?
>I've just finished raiding an entire coastal town and I have free food, free treasures, free weapons, free young girls, free trinkets

Check mate

>implying socialism isn't government sanctioned stealing
>implying wage/price/access inequity in capitalism is stealing
Go home, baby marx
>the debt and risk is spread across all society, resulting in higher standard of living for all
>you do not have interest here and it is not a cancerous ball and chain around your personal neck
you are taking a personal financial risk in pursuing that degree, why should other people have to (with the threat of force) pay for your education?
>you dont have a whole industry of middle mean debt corporations getting rich
The reason school loans have a high interest rate is due to their astronomical default rate and the fact that you can't post collateral. Default on a housing loan and the bank can reposess the house; default on a school loan and both you and the bank are shit out of luck and the bank just lost $30k.
Confirmed for not knowing shit about economics and finance.

Any money the government has to take above its bottom line devalues its currency relative to the rest of the world. Enjoy paying for other peoples' useless liberal arts degrees

«Free» means taxes, it is an idelogy, a pact. «If everyone gives 25% of his income, there will be free healthcare, free univ, free transports, welfare etc...».

It's not magic.

fpbp

What if you don't want to go to a university, can you pay less then?

Confirmed for never having worked for/with the government.
When you put the government in control of anything, it's inevitably shittier because there's no competition in the market and they can never lose their jobs. A good example is the charter schools in Harlem, NY: When you make it so that teachers can get fired for poor performance and open a choice of where to go to school, everyone will do better. For the first time in years, private schools in harlem are educating blacks instead of generating criminals, thanks to the free market.

Then why call it "free"?
Most of our politicians here will say (referring to education) "Everybody has the ability to go college". They don't say "everyone has free college" because the money still has to come from somewhere.

greed

>capitalism, ideally only relies on voluntary transactions.
>muh ancap!!!!!!!!!

It's crazy that capitalism only thrives in strong states.

>b-but corporatism is not capitalism!!!!! muh ideology!!!!!!

Faggot in diaper detected.

It's crazy that socialism/communism only thrives in strong states
>b-but true socialism has never been tried yet!!!

>Then why call it "free"?
Jesus Christ how can you guys be so autistic?

>When you put the government in control of anything, it's inevitably shittier because there's no competition in the market and they can never lose their jobs.
source?

> A good example is the charter schools in Harlem, NY:
explain

That is a retarded idea. That way the system would be vastly underfunded and when the time come and you want to use it, it cannot handle the demnad. The same can be aplied to healthcare

KEK

atleast capitalism attributes for some form of merit and doesn't just pay for the failures of society

>have nothing to argue with
>Get BTFO
>move the goalposts to another rant against muh socialism

Go back to school Cletus

>That is a retarded idea.
>Not paying for a service you don't want to purchase is retarded.
Portugal ladies and gentlemen.

>> A good example is the charter schools in Harlem, NY:
>explain

He did. You want something peer-reviewed?

That's another problem.

Everybody has not the ability to go college.

But it is not bad and it does not means he would have waste the taxed money of his parents. You can very well imagine a system where some money is given to workers so they could make their own business. Instead of going to school (which is very expensive).

What makes you think Socialism "just pay for the failures of society"

You actually believe that cringy shit accepted by Fox News of equality of outcome?

I suggest you visit Cuba. Let us know how being an edgy "Cuban Nationalist Socialist" is.

I was more thinking about paying for the unemployed and single parents, which are more often than not failures of society.

Incentives and shit.

>What makes you think Socialism "just pay for the failures of society"
>You actually believe that cringy shit accepted by Fox News of equality of outcome?

You really are hopeless, aren't you?

I've gone from rags to riches through hard work you little weasel. Don't wish a worldwide safety net on everyone just because you're still pissing your pants in mommy's bed.

Do you FEEL educated?

You are absolutely right

Rich people oppress worker in Capitalism and steal them money and Sup Forumstards still sucking the dick of Capitalism...

Sup Forums do not make a difference between socialism and Jewish/liberal socialism

>Not paying for a service you don't want to purchase is retarded.
Yes, check out this

>That way the system would be vastly underfunded and when the time come and you want to use it, it cannot handle the demnad. The same can be aplied to healthcare

yes i want to read things.

And charter schools are not free market in any way.

or maybe those states became strong because of capitalism?
also corporatism, as shown in America, is not an example of a free market.

>What makes you think Socialism "just pay for the failures of society"
History of my homeland

We're drowning in niggerified white trash created with sole purpose of keeping the working masses in check.

Enjoy spending the rest of your life paying for it in taxes.

>free
>35% of your income every month
>free

this

Nothing is wrong with Socialism. Americans call any left wing policy "Socialism" without understanding that Socialism means democratic control of the means of production. It's just typical American misinformation at play.

Queue (You)s

Attracts gibmedats and other subhumans.
Nationalsocialism on the other hand..

You think that I'am in a leftist degree such as Psycho or socio ?

Free money
Free education

>Source?
The F-35
Los Angeles County
Chicago
Detroit
Another good example is the ATF: They refuse to hire any more NFA reviewers to review $200 Form 1 and 4's. There are only 15 people to review the entire nation's NFA forms, and they won't hire any more people because they don't have a deadline to complete them by because they're the only organization that can approve tax stamps. Make their profit margin dependent on their speed and I guarantee you'll see Form 4's approved in under 30 days as opposed to 9-12 months.

nytimes.com/2015/04/07/nyregion/at-success-academy-charter-schools-polarizing-methods-and-superior-results.html?_r=0

>not posting a valid argument yourself
>complaining someone shitposted in response
fuck off

>I was more thinking about paying for the unemployed and single parents, which are more often than not failures of society.
>Incentives and shit.
there are winners and there are losers, user

>fox news

I think you mean MSNBC because only liberals shill for that nonsense because only an idiot would believe they deserve the same outcome for digging a hole as the outcome for a neurosurgeon

>doesn't have arguments
>"HURR DURR GO TO CUBA HAHAHAHAHAHHA I SHOWED HIM"
Stay in school little Timmy

You should really learn a bit more about your own country history Hans. It was Bismark who created the first welfare state, and Bismark know for his visceral hate for socialists.

Welfare is not a socialist fenomena.

good for you. But that is not an argument

well, I guess now you're paying taxes AND paying extra for healthcare and education

That's some Sweden level of cucking.

>Free money
>Free education
Did you short circuit?

>Makes it cheaper
It would only be cheaper IF they had very good data on what jobs were needed most so they could plan accordingly for degrees. Not 50% feminist studies with a minor in basket weaving. What about all the retards? What about people who are good with trades but may not be suited for school? Especially now that college is more and more a Marxist storefront where teachers who failed in the real world try and teach their fantasy worlds as being able to work out of the box, if those "evil rich people" paid more. Pic related because this guy is probably you.

So what? Are you justifying robbery?

>or maybe those states became strong because of capitalism?
´Maybe. But the important lesson is that one lives is required for another. Capitalism requires a strong state.

This is cherrypicking. I can point out sucesses of state, like social security, who took million and millions of people out of poverty.

You have to prove that ">When you put the government in control of anything, it's inevitably shittier because there's no competition in the market and they can never lose their jobs."
is a universal statement, and you can't prove it by presenting single examples.

Listen Cletus, i'm not saying that the state should be in charge of everything.

Taking money from rich citizens that have money thanks to the society where they live is robbery ?

Well put. I'm somewhat OK with people wanting more "free stuff" within reason. I don't agree with it for many reasons but the thing that pisses me off the most, is when they want more "free stuff" AND want to import every impoverished person who ever lived. If that happened in large scale you'd be dragged down right to that impoverished person while the rich people still live in their gated communities and let you fight over the scraps. I know migrants are costing Europe a ton but they are trying to put a facade over it. Wonder how long it can last.

30+ % tax and more taxes.
Burgers will defend this

>Welfare is not a socialist phenomena.
What then is socialism?
No private property?

What's the difference between communism and socialism?

It's a ancap, don't respond to him

>What then is socialism?
Now learn a bit Hans

>No private property?
ideally, yes

>What's the difference between communism and socialism?
You should be better asking someone who actually know their material

Socialism is a french critics of the new wave of Capitalism and liberalism after the Revolution and when the Bourgeoisy slowly killed aristocracy

>And charter schools are not free market in any way.
Relative to public schooling, Charter Schools are a step in the free-market direction. They can choose who they accept and who they hire and fire.

That's like saying a toll road isn't free market relative to just stealing money from you to maintain the roads. Want a better road? Vote with the dollar.

>I can point out sucesses of state, like social security, who took million and millions of people out of poverty.
Social security ran a $39 billion deficit in 2014 and is expected to be insolvent by 2035. You picked the absolute worst example.

The government immediately becomes a monopoly the minute it steps into an industry because it creates regulations forcing competitors out of that market. Every single time the government has had competition in a market that it hasn't legislated out of business, it's been outcompeted by the private option. Governments are also undefeatable because they can print fiat currency against the nation's credit, devaluing the currency to make up for poor management and finance. A government monopoly does not have a supply curve because it can choose how much to release to the market and it doesn't have to compete with other businesses and thus has the ability to choose the profit-maximizing price of its goods (healthcare, social security, roads, education, etc.) rather than a competitive price that maximizes the consumer's return on the dollar.

>Relative to public schooling, Charter Schools are a step in the free-market direction.
But they aren't fee market

>Social security ran a $39 billion deficit in 2014 and is expected to be insolvent by 2035. You picked the absolute worst example.

No i did not. You should check out the poverty rates of americans before social security was enacted to today.

Also that is not an argument vs social security, it's a argument that some reforms should be made on it.

>The government immediately becomes a monopoly the minute it steps into an industry because it creates regulations forcing competitors out of that market. Every single time the government has had competition in a market that it hasn't legislated out of business, it's been outcompeted by the private option. Governments are also undefeatable because they can print fiat currency against the nation's credit, devaluing the currency to make up for poor management and finance. A government monopoly does not have a supply curve because it can choose how much to release to the market and it doesn't have to compete with other businesses and thus has the ability to choose the profit-maximizing price of its goods (healthcare, social security, roads, education, etc.) rather than a competitive price that maximizes the consumer's return on the dollar.
Nice ideology rant. Now prove it's a axiom.

>What's the difference between communism and socialism?
Socialism doesn't really exist.
Pure socialism is an anarchy where each member consumes only what they need and produces enough for other members of society to consume. "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability" etc etc
Communism is what happens when government gets involved in socialism. In an effort to balance the ridiculous budget you get things like killing cripples and retards because they don't contribute anything to society and you generate a bourgoisie that consists of government officials with no oversight.

Pure socialism and pure capitalism end up meeting somewhere in the middle, the goal is a balanced "budget" with minimal government influence

THANKS FOR
CORRECTING THE RECORD
(KILL YOURSELF)
YOU BELIEVE A TON OF MARXIST SHIT
(END IT)
YOUR LIES ARE TAKING TRUMP HIGHER
(YOU'VE LOST THE ELECTION)
AND YOU KNOW THAT YOUR ASSHOLE'S REALLY SORE
(KYS)

>Socialism means democratic control of the means of production.

What would that look like and how would it be realized?

>Pure socialism is an anarchy where each member consumes only what they need and produces enough for other members of society to consume. "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability" etc etc
>Communism is what happens when government gets involved in socialism. In an effort to balance the ridiculous budget you get things like killing cripples and retards because they don't contribute anything to society and you generate a bourgoisie that consists of government officials with no oversight.
>Pure socialism and pure capitalism end up meeting somewhere in the middle, the goal is a balanced "budget" with minimal government influence
What the fuck is this?

I capped this shit lel

If only we knew...

It's a dream now. We just have to wait until automation really starts to hit us hard and welfare schemes start to crumble to see how it will evolve.

BTFO

>People are patriotic
>Strong familial values

>But they aren't fee market
They are MORE free market than public schooling, that is what is important. If you want an example of true free market, you should look at private schools, which absolutely mop the floor with public schooling.

>No i did not. You should check out the poverty rates of americans before social security was enacted to today.
>Also that is not an argument vs social security, it's a argument that some reforms should be made on it.
If you have to borrow against the dollar and run a deficit to return a profit (decreased poverty rates) then the system DOES NOT WORK. There's no incentive to make it work, because there's no competition for the government, so they can run it however the fuck they want and take as much off the top as they want. Also, correlation doesn't imply causation. We were also stealing a ridiculous amount of money from the WWII losers as "reparations" at that time; the deficit would have been even higher had we not.

>prove it's an axiom
Okay.
It's immoral to take money from people with the threat of force without their consent.

>le epic nigger shitty college degree meme

...

It has created a generation of weak babies. You will be steamrolled by foreign invaders that your leaders invite onto you.

>this
We're seeing the collapse of the attempted globalist socialist state before our eyes, and it's glorious

What about the part where open borders aren't inherent to left-wing economic polices?

>It's immoral to take money from people with the threat of force without their consent.

Faggot

Rich people are rich people because they are a minority that steal money from a majority of worker that have a miserable life


Winning a lot of money IS VERY FUCKING IMMORAL

GIVING MONEY TO PEOPLE IN NEED WHEN YOU ARE FULL OF MONEY AND BUYING LUXURY IS MORAL
They are oppressors that choose Hillary Clinton as the next president to make this happening again and again

>free
>free
>free

There is no such thing as a "free" service, especially when dealing with academia.

>paying higher taxes so youth can go to university and spend three years getting shitfaced on my money

Nah, you're alright mate

...

>cgt
wtf

>Rich people are rich people because they are a minority that steal money from a majority of worker that have a miserable life
Yes, rich government people have stolen a lot of money. Working for someone is a consensual contract. No one's forcing you to work.
Government officials and contractors != industry leaders and smart people
Crony capitalism != capitalism

Your natural rights are the right to life, liberty, and property. You do not have the right to anyone else's life, liberyt, or property any more than they have the right to yours. Giving to the poor is a voluntary action; when it's not, that's called theft.

Capitalism relies on voluntary transactions only for those at the top. The ones lower down and in the middle have little to no choice.

Automation so noone has to do the shitty jobs?
Or do you mean something like an AI controlled economy?

Of course it might work in the future, but at the moment it just sounds ridiculous to pursue.

Why would you risk millions of lifes in the process of converting to a system that we know doesn't work with humans as they are now?

>If you want an example of true free market, you should look at private schools
Private schools are state funded, and they operate on a not free market society, and therefore benefit from the existence of state. It's not free market.

>which absolutely mop the floor with public schooling.
Because they can pick and choose their students. But in my country public education is more valuable then private education. Private unis are all shit, and other then a couple of really good private pre university schools, they are shit.

Do you have any source for your claim?

>If you have to borrow against the dollar and run a deficit to return a profit (decreased poverty rates) then the system DOES NOT WORK. There's no incentive to make it work, because there's no competition for the government, so they can run it however the fuck they want and take as much off the top as they want. Also, correlation doesn't imply causation. We were also stealing a ridiculous amount of money from the WWII losers as "reparations" at that time; the deficit would have been even higher had we not.
According to you and your ideology

>It's immoral to take money from people with the threat of force without their consent.
Áccording to you and your ideology. Can you now stop with ideology rantings and prove that
>>When you put the government in control of anything, it's inevitably shittier because there's no competition in the market and they can never lose their jobs.
is universal?

And what happens if the government has schools with the same competitiveness when it comes to employment? Do well, you are paid well, do poorly, you're replaced. How does the private sector have a monopoly on an idea?

>social security

You do know that the gov't started raiding social security funds in the second half of the 20th century, after years and years of success and basically guaranteed solvency?

>inb4 This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by the electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy.

This is to be expected, because private schools can pick and choose their students. Public have to accept pretty much everything.

I don't know to evaluate a SAT result, but to me it doesn't seem to be such a big diference

Nigs don't even get degrees.

They may get into the college, but they just flunk out or run out of money.

They're literally just a temporary waste of space to deny whites admission

Not an argument
Not an argument.
In capitalism everyone is forced to pay for the failures of a few elite businesses, only for those businesses to be reckless and shit up things again later. See 2008.

>Your natural rights
>property

Property was created with society, there is no propriety in Nature


We have to work, it is not a choice. And for this, we rely on a person of power : a rich person.

If I want to work for 5K/Month, I will never find a work

> Friend moves to Sweden due to job.
> He's diabetic so he loves that all his insulin is now "free".
> Slowly starts to complain about the price of everything over there due to taxes.
> Buys things only when back in America.
> Eventually moves back to America for a variety of reasons (cost of living being one of them).
> Starts to complain about the price of insulin and reminisces about Sweden healthcare again.

He's a great guy but I have to bite my tongue not to point out the willful blindness going on in his thought process.

Protectionism was essential to the rise of the USA.

Social security is in danger now because of the population boom of the mid 20th century. Before then it was very useful.