Comment: As to your third paragraph

(See in situ)


As to your third paragraph

It sounds like a perfectly logical argument, until you ask: "who defines the term 'need'?" Is 'need' defined by the poor? By a rich bureaucrat? By a 50% democratic vote of the people?

In the end, 'need' is not going to be defined equitably. Some people will feel they 'need' more than others, and some less. The end result will be a definition defined by the State. This will be especially exacerbated in an economy with a shrinking resource base, as most communist economies tend to be. What may be your 'needs' today may be defined as 'wants' tomorrow and taken away from you.

Secondly, if your definition of "need" differs from that of the State, it must inevitably resort to force to take it away from you. This is form of taxation, and is a dangerous power to allow to grow in any sort of government. Add in any level of corruption and suddenly there may be groups within a society who 'need' your things more than you do.

The only system which solves the problem of government force being required to redistribute wealth is unrestricted capitalism. By allowing all citizens to own their private property and all the fruits of the labours, you allow the wealth of society to increase at the fastest possible rate. This, in combination with a sound supply of money, will make the currency worth more for everyone in this society, thus making us all richer, even the poorest among us. As mentioned in my previous post, it is the only way to ensure abundance.

The issue with communism is that many people who have the best of intentions flock to it because it directly helps the most poor and needy via government subsidy. On the other hand, capitalism seems cold, indirect and impersonal, despite the net benefit to society being far far higher. Thus we will always have those among us who advocate more state assistance to the poor. Not everyone wants to understand the complexities of a real, functioning, non-directed economy. They want people to be "fair", even at the expense of their own property and autonomy.