Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: money spending diagam.png (53KB, 580x411px) Image search:
[Google]
53KB, 580x411px
>socialism doesn't work because you are spending someone else's money
>but democracy somehow does?
Can someone explain this to me? The reason why socialism is nonfunctional is simple to explain via economic theory, as seen in pic related. But from what I can tell, the same argument can be used against universal democracy.
If EVERYONE gets a vote, that means you can vote to take somebody else's money away (which is exactly what happens in practice). Should a capitalist democracy therefore not restrict voting to taxpayers only? e.g., the restriction to land-owning males only such as in the past? The lack of such explains the observation of developed countries inevitably devolving into failing socialist states.
Modern liberal democracies are completely unfit for purpose, and cannot be justified. Why do people support it?
>>
>>2498731
You realize that modern liberal democracies are only limited democracies right?
>>
>>2498731
Sounds pretty retarded to me, like you haven't given the idea a lot of thought.
>>
>>2498731
>socialism
>money
Lmao, no child left behind
>>
>>2498771
how does that change anything? the voter base and the taxpayer base are still completely separate. just look at how many people don't pay income taxes. Why should they be allowed to decide where other peoples' money is spent?
>>2498773
>Sounds pretty retarded to me, like you haven't given the idea a lot of thought.
Actually, I put a lot of thought into it. If you look at history you notice a general trend of western democracies inevitably heading towards bigger government increased socialism. As a libertarian it confounded me, but then it made sense when I realized that it's the inevitable conclusion when universal suffrage is implemented. Nothing else makes sense.
>>
Democracy not being perfect doesn't change the fact that socialism is shit
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1