Do you think that the government should evenly distribute resources to everyone, regardless of rank, job, etc, but so that everyone gets the same things? This is equality and will eliminate social classes, etc. I think that people do not need more money for contributing "more" to society, but rather everyone should contribute their part to society. No need for money, too, and thus should be abolished. I think that the incentive to keep working, as opposed to slacking off, realizing you'll still get paid the same, is the fact that by doing so, you will go to prison. Those that don't work will be sent to prison. Everyone that is able would be required to work and if they cannot choose a job, the government will choose on for you. What do you think? We are sharing.
2007-11-26 14:40:52 · 35 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We should have shared sacrifice but that's about it.
2007-11-26 14:44:43 · answer #1 · answered by Antioch 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
This is flawed on so many levels. What are the incentives for people to become doctors, dentists, scientists, etc. if they will be receiving the same as a janitor? In short, there won't be incentive. Also, who will be distributing these goods to all of the people? The answer would be the government. People would have no checks on the government because as soon as they revolt, they starve. The government holds all of the cards in this situation. Also there is the question of economics. Who produces what for whom? In the United States, you can look at the dollar as a "vote" for a product that a consumer likes. If you take money out of the equation, you have no idea of how to satisfy consumer wants and needs. Look, I realize that this would sound like an "ideal" situation to some people, but you really have to ask the hard questions about a system like this before you endorse it. Communism has NEVER worked as an economic model before, and I doubt that it ever will. People are driven by self interest, and this just takes all forms of motivation away.
2007-11-26 15:28:01 · answer #2 · answered by ajfrederick9867 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think if my money is taken for social security, it needs to come back to ME in the end; and we have been told not to rely on SS because the gov will eventually run out of money. This really pisses me off. And in Texas teaches do not even qualify to receive ss anymore. Stupid Nazi government. Normally I lean towards democratic ways, but they all want to take more money for a few things esp. ss and I will not vote for that. almost half of my hubby's pay check goes to taxes. grrrr. FDR was a moron with good intentions and we still have to pay for it. As for your sharing everything...though it seems like a good idea, people are greedy, this would only create chaos in this life at least. Besides, if you were a lawyer, or dr and put in so many hours more than other people do for learning and then in their work, it's not really fair that they would be given only as much as the guy working at MC Donalds. Therefore, no one would want to be a dr or any other job that required a lot of skill when they could just slack at an easy job.
2007-11-26 14:53:11 · answer #3 · answered by depecheroni 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What you describe is socialism, like in Cuba. It promotes people not working or doing their best. Why should someone put forth the effort to be the best they can be, make money, when government will take it away and give it to someone else???
Socialism does not work, and socialized medicine does not work.
The great thing about America is, anyone who gets off their butt, works hard, can make something of themselves. Its called Capitalism and has been working well for over 200 years in this Nation. We have seen communism fall, the Iron Curtain fall and in time, will see Cuba fall.
2007-11-26 14:47:31 · answer #4 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
As a international we could continuously share each and every little thing. the type of artwork might could be seen for one hundred% employment. working for entertainment, production, or centers calls for various skills. As does being an company or an worker. Forcing the government to discover human beings artwork has been proved to reason young babies to take low paid artwork devoid of any destiny possibilities !
2016-10-18 05:10:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was tried already by the old USSR back in the day, It's good in theory but in all honesty, I can never work in this lifetime. There is too much selfishness and evil in this world, I'm sure it will happen for many in the new earth.
2007-11-26 16:52:48 · answer #6 · answered by EddieX 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!!! A man does not work every waking hour for 2 years to buy a house just to get it taken away from him, and for WHAT, so "Mr Gambles-A-Lot" can waste all of this determined man's earnings on gambling? I don't think so... we fought communists (indirectly) in the 20th century and buried it under with the mile thick of failed policies it worshiped. Communism is dead, and people should regard it as what it truly is, another failed belief that hasn't done the world a bit of good.
2007-11-26 15:11:46 · answer #7 · answered by Emperor Penguin 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
What you're describing is Communism in its purest form - I think history has shown that it really doesn't work.
One of the main problems is that some people are just plain more productive than others.
I think a better start would be to control ridiculous CEO salaries and force companies to pay staff in a more equitable - though not necessarily equal - manner.
You've got to have some personal posessions - I don't want to "collectivize" my home, family photos, knick-knacks, underwear, or anything else I consider "personal".
2007-11-26 14:49:41 · answer #8 · answered by daemon1251978 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
How many times are you going to ask this question? Why don't you be the first. Give everything you own to the homeless. Give them your car, cell, laptop, everything. Let's see how that works out before we start encouraging the whole country to join you in your mindlessness. When are you narrow minded liberal hippie socialists going to learn that you cannot legislate equality?
2007-11-26 17:31:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To share my 2 cents: I think equality, and particularly equality of opportunity should be valued in society. However, I am warry of any government that would forceably redistribute wealth amongst each other. Instead, I wish we had a society that would redistribute and encourage equality in all its actions. The imense amount of wealth in the top 1% is undeserved and unjustifiable. However, is it government's job to take that money away....I'd rather if we went back to the Carnegie era where he used his massive wealth to give tons back to people constantly. Today, giving is a tax dodge, a publicity stunt, or something you do late in life when your fortune is made. Prior to this, giving was something that society did constantly to increase equality of opportunity.
So should we share everything? Get as close as possible. But should the government make us share? Nope, we should do it ourselves.
2007-11-26 14:47:09 · answer #10 · answered by C.S. 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No! Competition is good. Without it we are Psychologically, socially, economically and politically stagnant.
We are not all equal, and we should not try to legislate equality. What we should do is legislate and promote equal opportunity.
What you are describing is social slavery.
2007-11-27 02:53:43 · answer #11 · answered by mjmayer188 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋