It's a comparison. Socalisism tries to make everyone equal financially, (financially poor.) by "spreading the wealth around." It does away with all incentive to get ahead financially by hard work and a good education. Why should Jane slave away 80 hrs a week to get a business off the ground, when if successful, she has to share with Johnny who chose to flip hamburgers his whole life. Which is more fair? Jane has nice house in a nice neighborhood and drives a new car. and Johnny rents a small apartment and uses public transit. Or, should they both live in a poor neighbood, in run down houses and drive older cars? If you chose the latter than you prefer socialism, which you have a right to your opinion. However, how long do you think Jane will keep that incentive to work hard? How long do you think it will be before Jane and Johnny both have apartments and are using public transit? Socialism does not raise up the poor, it only tears down the achievers.
Its a faulty comparison. which is a logical fallacy.
Saying socialism leads to poverty is cherry picking at best(I think you personally would probably call norway socialist, as well as a place like cuba however both of those countries have very different standards of living). Getting ahead financially is not the be all end all of life unless you actively want to be a slave to money.
Its funny that you mention education, because it seems that countries with better equality tend to have better education.
Poor Marks For U.S. Education System - CBS News
Jane shouldnt slave 80 hours a week, but if she chooses to thats her own thing. the point of socialism is to have people be able to do what they want whether or not they have the money to do it. So if I want to build houses for people i dont need to save up a lot of money, or any money at all in a completely equal system. I could just do it. so whatever janes business is, she could merely do it without financial incentive. she can do it because its what she likes to do.
"Jane has nice house in a nice neighborhood and drives a new car."
That is a logical fallacy. Its an appeal to wealth and it cannot be accepted.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_wealth]Argumentum ad crumenam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
"and Johnny rents a small apartment and uses public transit.'
This is an appeal to poverty, also cannot be accepted.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_poverty]Argumentum ad lazarum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
"Or, should they both live in a poor neighbood, in run down houses and drive older cars?"
Theres no indication that socialism leads to poverty, rundown houses or drive older cars.
"If you chose the latter than you prefer socialism,"
No. If you believe that capitalism leads to wealth and equality leads to poverty then Hong Kong should have the highest standard of living in the world as they have the freest markets. However, Norway actually has thehighest standard of living and ranks number one in human development
Norway still the world's best place to live - Aftenposten - News in English - Aftenposten.no
Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
im not saying that norway is truly socialist, but rather they have a fairly equal society. I do think most conservatives would consider norway to be socialist if they think the usa is socialist with obama...
