But at the end of the day, if some taxes are collected from those with enough to afford it, should a certain amount be used to help the weaker and needy? I say yes. This is a form of socialism. I believe in free enterprise but also in taking care of the needy. If not, not only is homelessness and human waste lying in the streets an eyesore, but it breeds crime. Furthermore, the way technology is going, there will simply be less and less jobs. 3d printers will eventually replace the factories, unemploying all those workers. AI will unemploy a lot of the service sector. And why not? Are we still cavemen living in the dark ages that we have to work so many hours a week like a slave for the rich man? With all these fabulous technological advances, free energy with solar etc power and everything else, why do we have to keep focusing so much on the “economy”? This economy is actually just a tool of the rich man to keep the rest under his thumb.
But even before this inevitable transition takes place (first there was the agricultural revolution, then industrial, then information, now I believe we will witness the self-sustaining revolution), should we take care of the weak?
For example, in the US, there are some one million homeless, while there are three times that number in foreclosed homes left empty and owned by the banks. Some banks are even bulldozing them down in a desperate attempt to kickstart another housing boom. How ridiculous. What good is a homeless person wandering from garbage can to garbage can looking for scraps of food when instead they can at least have a place of dignity to rest their head, have a shower and perhaps even find a job as a result? Who is going to hire a scruffy dirty person, and how is a homeless person supposed to put themselves into some presentable shape?
Or why is he homeless in the first place? I’ve read lots of examples of factory workers who lost their jobs as they were exported to China, but weren’t trained in other areas. They fell out of luck and now they are stuck in this position. They may have worked diligently for decades, raised a family, but now they simply lack the skills in these changing times. If a company decides to move its operations to China to increase its own profits, why cannot they be required to take some of those increased profits to retrain the employees they let go? These are socialist principles, as opposed to cut-through capitalism where the redundant employee is thrown into the streets as refuse to fend entirely for themselves.
There is a discussion about the pros and cons of socialism on this thread:
and it is certainly a hot topic among some. But what kind of society do you want to live in? I personally would prefer one that takes care of the weak. If someone is blatantly freeloading, perhaps let them, but do not provide them with so much that they can live comfortably and not at all be motivated to work. You could provide them with subsistence living, but if they want any more than that, they have to do something about it. But get them off the streets I say, and give them a chance to make something of themselves.
1 0 Report this post