101 votes

Professor Fails Entire Class To Give a Lesson On Socialism

I got this from Facebook. I doubt its real but its a great lesson on Free Markets vs. Socialism

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan." All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A perfect example of where we are headed

how we are going to get there. We need more teacher like this.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

wolfe's picture

Response to post below...

First I want to say thank you for interest in my opinion. I am going to only post a brief reference to the question I am answering so anyone following along should refer to below for the full question.

"1) After balancing the budget how long do you think it will take to reach the surpluses necessary to pay down the debt. Do you think inflating the currency will at least be a part of the solution?"

I personally don't believe it is possible at this point. I believe we have already passed the point of no return. If, by some miracle, all of the US got on board with the right policies, it would take decades at best. Inflating the currency, or not inflating wouldn't matter in terms of our ability to eliminate it. Besides, our money is debt based. Paying down the debt means what is in circulation is worth more. Creating more, steals value from the existing people who currently hold cash (middle class). If we inflate, it just means we owe that much more.

"2)Under the gold standard dollars will be redeemable in gold. Does the US govt. have that much gold? Or should the gold standard kick in after the debt has been erased."

The US doesn't hold that much, if any, gold. However, the value in the gold standard is in preventing the government from "creating" new money out of thin air, not in it's actual value.

"3)I've read some statistics that all the gold ever mined is worth a total of of $ 3 trillion.So in shifting to a gold standard won't that necessarily change drastically either the value of gold or the dollar?"

Sort of, the value would remain about the same, but I'll hit that in the next paragraph. If you look at the historical record for silver values (Gold has flaws which I will explain in a moment that you have touched on), you will find something REALLY amazing. Did you know that a loaf of bread costs almost exactly the same today as it did 50, or even 100 years ago? If you peg the value of the dollar against silver, at least. In other words, if you used silver to buy it back then, and silver to buy it today at the appropriate exchange rates, it would have taken almost the exact same amount of silver to make the purchase. We don't have more wealth in the system, just more paper.

A pure gold standard (which is not what RP advocates) has a few flaws. First, gold is easily manipulated due to it's relatively low abundance. Cornering the gold market is easy to do by the wealthy, and in fact gold has been held at artificial lows for a long time. And second, it would require the government hold possession of gold to back the paper. The problem is that, according to many in the US, we believe our gold was plundered a long time ago.

What RP advocates is open competition among currency. One of the reasons is that if we paid down the debt to 0, there would be no money. It would have to happen through competition and slow elimination. He has referenced a multiple metals approach, including silver. Silver is ideal because it is abundant enough that every major effort to corner the silver market has failed miserably, including a few very famous cases. However, it is valuable enough to not require tons of it just to buy groceries.

It is the reason that silver prices have remained so constant over the decades. JFK was set to sign an executive order authorizing a silver standard but never did.

Something also, is that through fractional reserve banking, there has NEVER been enough of an asset to cover printed paper. So if the government held say $100 worth of metal, they could distribute $1000 worth of paper. This is actually the largest problem. It is institutionalized fraud and needs to be eliminated.

I have said a little about a lot... You asked very big questions and so I tried to cover them as best as I could without getting too boring. However, if you want to pick any of the topics that I mention, we can go deeper into it.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Follow Up

1) Inflating would help as far as the value of $15 Tn. would be much around half in 14 years time at 5% inflation.

You also have to pay other countries.

2)Yes, in the freedom to fascism documentary Ron Paul does say they they have not been allowed into Fort Knox for quite some time. How do you like the idea of a central bank with a single mandate of controlling inflation under congressional supervision?

3)Yes, I consider metals as having intrinsic value which does not fluctuate suddenly because they already have set values in different industries(Taking inflation into account ie your example of silver for bread)

IF you nationalized your central bank, maybe that could be the solution, if a gold standard isn't.

wolfe's picture


1) Just to be realistic and not theoretical for a moment, if we *really* monetized the debt, even slowly, it would destroy the foreign investments as badly as a default or bankruptcy through devaluation and we would have an invasion/war on our hands.

2) That is what we currently have. It's fractional, it's a mess, and it's fraud.

3) Allow our politicians access to the printing press to create money at will to hand out to the people? That would fail as fast as the Fed for obvious reasons. There is no perfect solution so long as fractional reserve banking exists because it allows whatever entity with power of the printing press to create money, thereby stealing from those who have to hold it for any length of time (middle class).

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Cyril's picture

Ha! For what I know, you make great valid points as a recap

Ha! For what I know, you make great valid points as a recap of what I've read from various sources elsewhere. I wouldn't have done better! Thanks for the readers of this thread (godsfavson and others I suppose)

You're obviously well-informed. I'd just like to add with my small contribution especially on this you didn't forget to mention and I personally find especially important, since it's at the crux for laying down saner foundations for the rest to build up onwards:

"In other words, if you used silver to buy it back then[...]it would have taken almost the exact same amount of silver to make the purchase. We don't have more wealth in the system, just more paper.[...]So if the government held say $100 worth of metal, they could distribute $1000 worth of paper. This is actually the largest problem. It is institutionalized fraud and needs to be eliminated."

So, here's a rather expert argument to be aware of, going in the exact same direction, plus great historical insights for those who have missed it so far:


(Prof. Murray Sabrin on the Fed.)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

wolfe's picture

Thank you.... :)

Sometimes I wonder if I communicate well enough, so it is nice to hear when I have... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Just thought of this

One thing to add: To whoever wrote the post earlier about the bell curve story. The professor in the story is wrong about capitalism. Capitalism is NOT about competition. Capitalism is about TRADE and VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE. Competition is a RESULT of capitalism because a subset of people realize that if they work very, very hard to compete with others that they can get more for themselves. There's nothing wrong with this as long as they don't resort to fraud or violence because they will, in their greed, also benefit others through trade and voluntary exchanges.


Competition is an integral part of capitalism. We agree that it healthy and drives costs down.

That is why Ron Paul advocates competing currencies.


Suppose you had an orchard.

You grew fruit on it, ate some sold the surplus. It was enough to keep you in comfort.

Then a corporation came along with vastly lower prices. Took your customers away. You had no way to compete.

You had to sell the orchard just to get by and were left with just a house.

Then expenses got too big and you took out a loan with your house as collateral.

Tried working but couldn't make it in a world that changed too quickly. House got taken away. Homeless and no job...

Competition is all well and good, but what if you're check and mated?

It is not right that we throw these people under the bus. Yes, they made bad choices or circumstances conspired against them.

But I still believe in a social safety net for some. For rich old retirees, of course it is useless.

General Welfare: People who have enough to at least live on will be less inclined to steal and less inclined to commit crimes. Thus, it is in the benefit of society.

The bell curve will always be there. Very Few people on very low income. A lot of people on some middle income and very few on very high income. If you look at your country's curve, the middle class is deflated, the upper class inflated as Ron Paul correctly says.

But we've already done this topic to death below :)
Now its about implementation of the gold standard and the debt.

Cyril's picture

Hmm.. no offense but you still seem to have a rather manichean

Hmm.. no offense but you still seem to have a rather manichean view of the dynamic of the markets with maybe a too abstract view of things.

You oppose the biggest to the smaller or smallest. A truly free-market based society is, I suppose, likely to share some attributes with what you witness in the wilderness and its food chain : predators, more peaceful gatherers, very specific sector and business domains, more versatile ones, etc.

But you seem to forget the human factor and the true nature of trade and exchange and its dependance to times adaptation. Have you ever been involved at least once in EACH of the three sizes of business (to keep it simple): small, mid-size, and large corporations?

What I mean is I can return you the argument:

1. first, on a market, if you're small and a big one comes around, you're not forcibly eaten even if the raw costs of production of the second are lower "on the paper"; as a small one already present on the market, you may have very valuable, though intangible assets such as "savoir-faire", "customer relations", "consumer-customization capabilities", etc; and what you might as well end up with is finding yourself made a proposal to sell or associate or affiliate a part or all of your company; then it sure is up to you to make a good deal and get a good offer after giving your quote of your value...

2. precisely per your value as a "small one" evaluated in (1) don't be naive: it's not because you have giants coming around they will automatically feel all powerful and free from any market threats from you, especially once ANTI-FRAUD (and/or ANTI-TRUST) laws can be trusted as being ACTUALLY enforced in the general case and not as an exception (as it is sadly still the case today); I can cite examples by the dozens in IT but I have no doubts it's valid in other domain as well; you may have unique inventions/patents/workforce knowledge (savoir-faire, again) that they will be very interested in matching, and that's where laws for fair competition are on your side, usually, assuming one enforce them;

3. finally, whether the outcome of (1) or (2) is more or less favorable to the "small ones", these have a final unique, essential intangible asset or quality if you prefer : a much lower inertia usually in adapting their products or services wrt their customer base -- this is actually sometimes what can make a whole difference in the final outcome of continuation or adaptation of your business

Again, document yourself and see for yourself in companies' history all over the world how so many times "David" has done a much better job than "Goliath" on market in "favorable" circumstances where the giant, Goliath, hadn't managed to bias the rules of the game so much into his own (bought) advantage and David's (bought as well) misfortune...

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

wolfe's picture

You bring up another point...

Corporate personhood...

If you want me to address those evils, I can. But in purely free market, what you suggest is not the likely scenario. Nobody ever said free markets are utopian or perfectly handle every possible bad outcome. They simply are better, more efficient and yes better at charity as well.

I went from being homeless at one point in my life to making more in a week than most people make in a year... Back to being poor, and back up. All without a safety net. That's life. It's not perfect, but it is made less perfect by government interference.

By seeking to address the a problems, some imagined, some real... Government creates far more.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

wolfe's picture

Absolutely correct...

At some point in this mess of comments, the original poster of that example acknowledged the difference.

My biggest issue with socialist rhetoric is that it always holds up the failures of socialism to explain why socialism is needed... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

This is not a new phenomenon

When I was in school, back when we had to walk ten miles uphill both ways through 10 feet of snow, (late 1960's), I had TWO different teachers relate almost the exact same story. But that was also before the socialists took over and turned the schools into propaganda mills.

Freedom is my Worship Word!


This was supposed to have been a response to paulverize's "teacher split the class in half - see below.

But I don't know how to delete and relocate a whole post.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

When I went to school a teacher split the class in half

He created a debate, one side had to prove that there was a problem with over population and the other had to prove that there was not.

I got the side that had to prove there was a problem.

The side that had to prove there was a not a problem went first.

They brought maps and gave all kinds of solutions to the over population. They said people could move to Canada and many other locations and people could live quite well.

I stood up and showed them that what they did was prove there was a problem as they were making solutions for the problem.

The Teacher failed the other half of the class and our side got A's.

Teachers do the damnedest things to prove a point.

I'm surprised by how many

I'm surprised by how many people here are arguing in defense of socialism..
How can you believe in socialism yet support Ron Paul? I'd think the freedom that RP stands for is the complete opposite of a socialism..


For the depth of Mr. Wolfe's erudite reasoning and logic,you need only read the following excerpt from his post:

//for my comments

"I am going to make this really simple for you.

How can a man earn 100,000 if there is only 10,000 in circulation?

He earns 10,000.

He uses it on goods and services. //so now he has $0

He earns the same 10,000 back from those that he paid.

He uses it on goods and services.

Rinse and repeat 10 times. Voila.

He has earned 100,000 when there was a "scarce" money supply."

wolfe's picture

Thank you for proving that you still don't get it...


And showing exactly what I mean by refusing to listen and causing me to lose patience.

Btw, that example (though I paraphrased for brevity), I believe originated from "The Creature From Jekyll Island" from Griffin.... Btw, routinely referenced around here... But of course you know better than any of the experts on the topic... :) Seriously, try to understand what is being said. Your response amounts to : "It sounds crazy." without any further thought given. That is not the way to learn.

The comment was in reference to earning. Savings are irrelevant in regards to money since money is in fact only medium of exchange.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

"Savings are Irrelevant"


I gave it great thought. In fact for a moment I almost agreed that yes, under these circumstances he can earn as much as he likes.


Your premise was that only $10000 are in circulation.




That is how your scenario will pan out.
The man and the traders will alternately starve.

I SUPPORT free markets on the evidence that I have seen,but I do not pretend everyone will be rich and no one will die of poverty as we are constantly competing over limited resources.
Perhaps in your world money is infinite, but in India where I live its scarcity is in stark evidence whenever I step out of my house or car.

Your argument that it is from "Creature from Jekyll Island" is an 'argument from authority' which is a logical fallacy. I can quote the opinions of the greatest economists in modern times who say otherwise, but it will not prove anything.

The point to take home- There is no definitive answer as of now.
No one knows how things will pan out under either system.

Economic Theory is easy enough but how it pans out is notoriously difficult to predict.

We should not be pretending to know what will happen when people who've studied it for decades have been wrong.

Now in the interests of everyone who is wondering why on earth this article keeps bubbling up to the top lets end this discussion.


Money is simply a commodity of significant rarity that is readily used for exchange, usually because it is also easy to transport and identify. Gold has, historically, met all these criteria best, but other items have also at one time or another (salt, sea shells, government issued paper). You don't need to multiply how much money is in the system in order to get wealthier or richer, you simply need to facilitate trade so that more people are able to participate in whatever activities society deems "productive" by virtue of where they invest their resources (on aggregate). The idea of a free market is that all of the participants have absolute choice in how they allocate their individual resources, whether that's personal survival, luxuries, investments in future returns (in self or others), charity, the environment, etc. That's why the forced Bell Curve is better for showing fascism than capitalism. Capitalist classrooms aren't easy to make because free markets require specialization in DIFFERENT resources (they don't treat all jobs or resources equally, because they're not created equal). If you could, say, do really well in Science, because you're good at it and your friend is good at English and then you could trade your points so you both get good grades at the end of the semester, THAT would be capitalism. Capitalism encourages SPECIALIZATION because being REALLY GOOD at one thing is rewarded by being able to TRADE for what you need in other areas. TRADE is the key part that is missing from both the fascist and socialist examples, because they fundamentally don't believe in trade as a means of improving society. That's actually their primary flaw...

wolfe's picture

Your scarcity argument is a flawed premise...

There is no scarcity of effort, it is impossible. Only laziness creates scarcity in that situation and the lazy can starve, I don't care about them, and I will not be held back by them either.

And there is no scarcity in a market as a whole, because the very concept of a market is an exchange of effort. A *resource* may become scarce in a market, which will be resolved by the market through redirected effort.

Money is a measure of earning/effort, not wealth. The idea that you are wealthy because you have a lot of money is ridiculous. Money only feeds you if someone is willing to take it in exchange for food, meaning an effort exchange.

I was not arguing from authority. Merely pointing out who it was that you disagreed with and were saying is wrong. I have given numerous counter points to you, that you ignore and walk past.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -


Ok, so this is the resolution. you believe the only ones who are poor are the lazy and they should be allowed to starve.

Step out of your bubble my friend. In India a thousand farmers commit suicide because their crops failed and they could not feed their families.

Many die because they were born poor, had no education and have no home so freeze to death on the streets or die from heat and dehydration.

In your own country people are mentally ill or physically incapable of work. Should they should be allowed to die?

We, as a nation decided that our laws and policies would reflect our conscience as a people so we do our best to take care of these people.

Your country's constitution does not contain the word 'socialist' so you practice capitalism hoping it will make everyone prosperous enough in the long run, or at least have enough money going around that people will donate voluntarily to take care of the poor and that is also acceptable.

What you do is cast everyone who believes in some kind of socialism i.e more than half your country, as kooks and idiots, something which you take exception to when it is returned in kind.

Empathy is a great virtue. Dr. Ron Paul is a great practitioner of this quality. Trust me, you will never have a person such as this run for president again in your lifetime.

With all sincerity and the best possible wishes I say do us all a favor and elect this saint. You could not all unite under a lesser man even if he preached the same ideas. Do it THIS time.

Cyril's picture

I'm not sure about which point you're trying to make, if any

... Sorry in advance if it feels like an intrusion in an already well advanced argument between you and others (wolfe), but just thought I could share my opinion, if it can save you(us?) some time:

godsfavson, you wrote : (a) "you believe the only ones who are poor are the lazy and they should be allowed to starve"

and then

(b) "In your own country people are mentally ill or physically incapable of work. Should they should be allowed to die?"

I might be misled but both the (a) claim and (b) question provide the reader with the strange (and unwelcomed) feeling of an attempt of putting words in someone else's mouth. I've read the other replies in the thread and that's my feeling, anyway.

Starting with (b) : of course nobody in one's sane and compassionate enough mind is willing to leave the mentally ill or physically incapable to work to a cruel fate. You seem to be calling for a tautological answer which would not be allowed to be "NO", unless the reader had agreed with all your prior assumptions and steps of your reasoning.

I think it is untrue to say that human empathy has to forcibly imply and wait for the implementation of ANY system of society formally defined beforehand, such as socialism. Human civilizations have worked around these issues more or less successfully in various way for centuries if not milleniums even way before Marx' ideas. "Charity" in various forms, including from religious or from privately own companies and associated benefactors, was obviously a major vector.

You then claim (c) "Empathy is a great virtue. Dr. Ron Paul is a great practitioner of this quality. Trust me, you will never have a person such as this run for president again in your lifetime."

where, now, you're totally right. But then if you find Ron Paul so interesting and of value, where did you find AS WELL, and anywhere, his explicit support for any type of highly defined, regulated, and bounded economic system, such as socialism? I mean : instead of his repeatedly stated, explained, and justified preference for a much simpler free-markets-based society where anti-fraud laws would ACTUALLY be enforced.

Hint : this last point is precisely Ron Paul's, if you missed it. He defends the idea that America needs NO MORE than a restoration towards fair free-markets with thorough anti-fraud laws enforcement, which has so far been RARELY the case in the 200+ years of US history. Precisely because of the empowering of crony capitalism over markets LESS AND LESS free, because of inflated governments sleeping in the same bed as those corporations' lobbyists (metaphorically speaking, meh)

Socialism, for what I know, is all about government with huge prerogatives over the economy, if not over all the capabilities boundaries of the economic actors themselves, leading towards the extreme scenarios of large, disastrous planning that the soviets experimented with for decades in their "PLANS" before... well, total bankrupting, and back to square one.

Ron Paul does not trust in any way attempts to put the whole economy and/or the society into a sophisticated scheme of equations coming out of "the labs" of a handful of an economic theory elite. Instead, he prefers to bet on the people itself, protected by a very simple text (guess which) and the evolution of free-market driven opinions and mentalities, to work around the unavoidable new issues that each era comes with.

Example : environmental protection has one of these dimensions where whistle blowers have been capable to leverage to alert the public and the markets opinion about the longer term stakes of exhausting the environment. Big government, whether socialist and/or with a cozy relationship to a handful of lobbies brings a much higher threat on acknowledging in all fairness the people's mentality trends in a timely fashion. This is precisely because of crony capitalism with the gov that it took so long to the society here and elsewhere to catch up with ecological concerns. A socialism system such in the USSR pose the same threat thru a different way : because the decision and result of stating on these is left to the super-powered government alone, via tedious and lengthy process.

If you're interested in both Liberty and Ron Paul's restoration plan for America, the Daily Paul is definitely for you, I'd say.

But if you're interested in both socialism, or related economically and sociologically-intrusive ideologies, and Ron Paul's "libertarianism", my guess is others like Chomsky are likely a much better fit for your beliefs and interests, than Ron Paul is, actually.

Back to (a) : wolfe made a great point, IMO, answering this, which I find a totally definitive answer before decide if it's worth for you to spend time about it :

"I do not call socialists kooks or idiots. They however do have basic misunderstandings and lack of knowledge of economics. Almost anyone can be taught if they want to learn. I do however call those who actively support it thieves, because that is what they are. They take effort from one and decide who that effort should go to. That is theft, and a form a slavery."

I'd only add : in a free-markets-based wealthy and fair society, poor/unemployed people are likely not to remain so for very long anyway, and lazy people wouldn't be encouraged to remain so, either.

After all, laziness is absolutely a naturally temporary human flaw : anyone has the right to once decide to work less hard or be less ambitious, in one's life. The point is it should, however, never be encouraged by a society where the redistribution at a large scale (welfare patterns, schemes) also tend to encourage the milking of the system.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


No man, its an important discussion, more minds the better.

I did not HAVE to put words in his mouth though I'm not above that,lol :)

"There is no scarcity of effort, it is impossible. Only laziness creates scarcity in that situation and ""the lazy can starve, I don't care about them"", and I will not be held back by them either."

He makes the connection that all poor people are so because they are lazy. Though not spelled out, that is clearly his meaning.

In socialism, I go as far as social welfare programs, govt. ownership of land and businesses is not part of it. Socialism can be used to mean a variety of things before you bring that up. Socialism does not equate to Communism.

On Socialism

Since I used to be one:

Socialism is a BROAD umbrella of ideas which center around redistribution of wealth using some kind of arbiter, usually the government, so that the poor of society might receive relief from their condition by taking resources from those who have more than enough to live with. It sounds noble and very Robin-Hood-esque, and many people that believe the philosophy have noble intentions.

Fascism and Communism are the two major ways socialism has appeared in the world in actual form. There are less drastic hybrids that have had some success in very small countries with incredibly strict immigration policies.

At any rate, being poor is not caused by laziness. However, struggling with poverty can cause people to give up and become "lazy" because they lack hope. The real question is what is the best way to move resources to those who are poor, inept, without hope, or suffering from disabilities? The answer, I have found, is that free markets create surplus goods and technology and create an environment that benefits the poor the absolute most in aggregate. What I have seen is that government hurts the poor more than it helps them and that the free market and CHARITY are the best arbiters for moving resources from the wealthy to the poor.

wolfe's picture

That was not my meaning...

Nor was it the only time you put words in my mouth. Almost every one of your responses does that. And once again it is intellectually dishonest to carry on a debate that way.

You bringing in sick, and incapable people was your plea to emotion since you do not have a logical response.

No unifying philosophy can address that, other than one's INDIVIDUAL charity. To steal, to give is immoral.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

If we were robots

Not putting words in your mouth man. When there is an implication to what you're saying then I can point it out. I might use that tactic to win a debate but it is self defeating when I'm trying to acquire knowledge. That's why I usually try not to deal in hypotheticals because they can distort truth very easily and convincingly. Sometimes to put a point across I'm forced to. That is not to say I'm trying to disparage you or your argument. Simply wondering what your philosophy would lead to in certain circumstances.

Then we could be driven only by logic. But we are not and our emotional needs to protect the lives of others must be met. Indeed most societies in the world DEMAND that they be met.

wolfe's picture

Charity at the end of a barrel of a gun is...

mugging. Not charity.

You feel sorry for someone, feed them, help them... Do not steal from everyone else to make you feel better.

India is socialist. Hardly an example of why free markets fail.

I do not call socialists kooks or idiots. They however do have basic misunderstandings and lack of knowledge of economics. Almost anyone can be taught if they want to learn. I do however call those who actively support it thieves, because that is what they are. They take effort from one and decide who that effort should go to. That is theft, and a form a slavery.

And for the record, the other half of the population is fascist, not capitalist. Only about 5-10% of the population show any signs of understanding.

You talk a lot but say little of substance.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -


You cannot claim to have special knowledge in the field of economics and say THAT is why everyone else disagrees with you.

In economics when so much depends on the actions of human beings, it is a little arrogant to make claims of absolute knowledge.

You will make a good politician but a very poor seeker of truth.

Individuals make a pact with society and live under it in exchange for protections and common utilities. The govt. levies necessary taxes for these services under the constitution which is considered a reflection of the collective will of society.

The preamble to our constitution has 'socialist' in it so we can use money for welfare. Your country's doesn't so you don't want one.

Be under no illusion. If a constitutional amendment is required, do you really believe your congress won't pass it?

Supreme Court Justices have said your social programs are constitutional, you claim to know better. To make it worse you take a jab at me at the end of each comment to impress God knows who.

Just read some texts on socialism. I'm not really an advocate but you're turning me into one because you seem to think it has no merit at all.

wolfe's picture


I make no claims to absolute knowledge. But I do make claims to knowledge, which I do possess. Something that socialists cannot do, because all socialist claims are based on false premises.

I don't take jabs at you. But I will state where your arguments are flawed and where you need to educate yourself. I have long since lost patience with you. You have completely disregarded information in favor of flawed premises and artificially constructed problems.

You should read some texts on libertarianism, or Austrian economics. I have apparently read far more on socialism and communism than you have. So return the favor before trying to debate the subject.

There is no common pact to do anything for me. I have signed no contracts, I have not requested such services, they are forced upon me by forcing my payment for them.

The US is already socialist, no need to do anything further to create it. In fact, every plank of the communist platform has already been implemented in the US. Look it up. In some cases, using private entities to mask government involvement (fascism).

You are being dishonest. You are already a socialist. However, if listening to me espouse the libertarian beliefs turns you into a socialist, then I would rather have that than have you among the ranks of libertarians, pretending to be one of us and potentially misleading people.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -


"There is no common pact to do anything for me. I have signed no contracts, I have not requested such services, they are forced upon me by forcing my payment for them."

Then my answer to you is go live in the jungle on your own. You are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist.

I have not read books on Libertarianism or Austrian economics but have seen videos of lectures.

You possess knowledge but incomplete knowledge on the basis of which you want to let people die of hunger.

"First do no harm" heard of that?

What would you say if 1000s died and your great plans never worked out. Would you say 'sorry'? Would it be enough?

We simply try to do the best we can, morally and financially. To take extreme steps on something we can only speculate about is irrational. Unintended consequences should be a term you are familiar with.