Why do some people believe in the concept of "each according to his ability to each according to his needs"?

Question

This is the basic underlying principle of socialism. However, just for the sake of argument let's begin with a zero sum and provide everyone with exactly the same amount What will happen? You will still have rich and poor, or haves and have nots. The rich will be those who use what they need and then save or invest the surplus. The poor will be those who squander all the resources available to them and then go looking for extra rations. So how is it possible to maintain a balance? The answer is you cannot. You will have to take even more from those who plan wisely to give to those who don't. No matter what direction I come at it from I cannot overcome this basic fact. This does not even factor in the truism that not all people will not work as hard as others for what they receive.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

Yep.  

If we had a system like that there would be so many needs that there would not be enough ability to keep up. Everyone would be poor, except for the selcted few who hold the reigns.

The government would have the right to sieze private property, income, investments, etc. all in the name of "the common good"

And it starts with things like nationalizing healthcare. Wake up folks! If you give the government an inch they will take a mile.

Did you see the devastation that took place in the former Soviet bloc?

Answer 2

   A perfect solution cannot exist when it involves highly imperfect people.  

    Some people will always squander what they have, some won't.  Many times people choose to be poor.  So I agree - to maintain an equal an equal balance is nearly impossible.

   Maybe if we eliminate all currency and possessions, we could maintain a *near* perfect balance...

Answer 3

that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. if that were the only reason poor people needed help, b/c they squandered their money, then sure I wouldn't be for social services. But you, of course, know that the majority of people needing social services are not money squanderers, but hard working people who fell on some bad times.

I am shocked with the number of people who know NOTHING about social welfare. Social service use up 1% of our federal budget....1%. We spend 167 million on corporate welfare--more than 3 times what we spend on social services. As for 'squandering' the majority of people on welfare are the elderly--6 million, children under the age of 5--64% and the disabled 1 in 4 of which are Veterans..

Answer 4

Because it sounds so appealing!

And you're so right!  There will still be those who manage their funds responsibly and have more, and those who squander their funds and have less.

Besides, what the government subsidizes they will always get more of.  

A prime example is the public school system.  Under Clinton, schools that under-performed got additional funds so they could do better.  The result was that schools all TRIED to under-perform to get the additional funds!  Jeeeze-o-Peets!

LBJ found out that subsidizing poverty generated generations of poverty!  

We're finding out that subsidizing public education generates socialism because socialism is unable to fund itself due to the fact that it generates poverty.

Socialism is a virus that needs a strong host, but then it weakens its host and eventually kills it.

Charity is best left as a private-sector function.  When placed into the hands of government, it is reduced to a procedure where the requirements for qualifying are codified and people consider it an "entitlement", not a gift for those in need.  

Instead of being thankful, people feel they are "entitled" when they meet the criterion set forth in the codes & statutes!

Answer 5

absolutely right

I dont care what the left says

they always want to take away more from hardworking

people

and give it to lazy slobs

thats it to the point

you dont like libturds

too bad

go cry to someone else

Answer 6

Communism sounds good, but it just doesn't work. People are born with the pleasure principle and self-interest built in. They will work hard if they get a reward, but without a reward, they do as little as possible.

Some people who favor the social welfare state are employed in govt social welfare organizations. Others are Democrats who want to keepthe poor sucking on the govt teat, and voting for Democrats. You see, self-interest triumphs again!

Answer 7

I can't argue with your analysis, just want to add... for some greed is not the main motivation.

Answer 8

Its a utopian solution to the worlds ills and the world isn't composed of utopian thinkers, its composed of grubby people who want theirs and yours too and the h**l with anything else.

I do love the idea that the rich will invest and behave so wisely and rationally, and only buy six made in China Chihuahua rhinestone collars.  And the poor with so little resources available to them will squander those resources of things like food and energy.

Rich people aren't wiser, they just have more money.

Poor people aren't any wiser, they just have less money.

By the way, Communism, a failed economic policy is followed in very few countries, even in China, once Mao died it wa changed a bit, and is changing every day.

That phrase you used is part of Communism, not socialism.