[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 38 KB, 584x560, 0_QwB5ZP7E8STxqRz3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16563742 No.16563742 [Reply] [Original]

Is this an example of a misunderstanding of socialist theory and if so why?
I think socialism's hardest challenge comes from one's inability to rationally defend its main implicit tenet, that is: having a duty to help people (financially and/or otherwise) outside of those with whom I voluntarily choose to enter some sort form of contract.

Then, how is it possible for a mass of people to claim a right to a part of my (assuming justly) accumulated capital with whom I never entered any voluntary contract?

To me, this always seemed like the nail in the socialist's coffin; that he can't prove that people have this implicit right and duty to help receive help from complete strangers.

>> No.16563752

>>16563742
>assuming justly
Found your problem.

>> No.16563759
File: 21 KB, 480x480, 1574465109545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16563759

>>16563742
>You can't prove an inherent duty to help others

>> No.16563801

>>16563752
why? do you believe that capital cannot be accumulated without the exploitation (theft) from others?

>> No.16563813

>>16563759
What, exactly, is wrong with that?

>> No.16563976

>>16563742
It's not about modern liberal "rights", nigga. It's about history. It's clear you haven't read shit.

>> No.16564094

>>16563976
I am not talking about that kind of rights. I thought it was clear enough I was referring to natural rights.

>> No.16564216

>>16563742
>having a duty to help people (financially and/or otherwise) outside of those with whom I voluntarily choose to enter some sort form of contract.
People already do, and it’s not like socialism needs everyone to do so either

>> No.16564231

>>16563742
socialism doesn't require your consent, if you are in a position to consider alternatives, it isn't for you

>> No.16564267

>>16564216
The post below yours says that it doesn't require my consent, is this not incompatible with your position?

>> No.16564280

>>16564231
So it both doesn't require my consent and isn't for me? Isn't this a contradiction?

>> No.16564385

>>16564094
>natural rights
You must be kidding me.

>> No.16564424

>>16564385
Are you not willing to give explanations too? I am not sure what I am supposed to interpret out of that. That you don't believe natural rights are a valid concept? That I didn't apply the term correctly? That I am making some other type of confusion?

>> No.16564499

>>16563742
Socialism is the equivalent of the stupid kid in class asking the smart one to let him take a peek at his exam.

>> No.16564525

>>16564424
Correct. Natural rights are not real; You also didn't apply the term correctly, and that was probably the consequence of your confusion.
It's obvious you're coming from a lazy libertarian/related standpoint, with all that talk about contracts. If you had read Marx and such, you'd know that this have nothing to do with it. This discussion is moot because you simply don't know what you're talking about.
And since I have no interest in promoting socialism, just in chastizing you for being an annoying ignorant, I'll won't go further than saying this: avoid making this stupid point in public because you'll make yourself look like a fool.

>> No.16564536

>>16564280
It's for people who can't get a better deal any other way and if there is enough of them/you are too weak, they'll take what they want

>> No.16564541

>>16564499
Not true. I was the smart kid who kept my test wide open with the answers circled largely when sitting next to the dumb kid but i despise socialism. I would consider that a better analogy for social democracy.

>> No.16564556

>>16564525
Don't listen to this faggot retard anon i disagree with you but he is just being an npc who shuts down when asked to defend his point. The classic "i don't feel like arguing/im just memeing" is a coping mechanism for those mentally challenged.

>> No.16565110

>>16563742
Socialism isn't a voluntary contract, the government forcefully redistributes the wealth. Look at Cuba right after the revolution, it isn't a perfect example but the government took the wealth of the higher class i.e industrial farms, factories and other large businesses, and used that wealth to lift the poor population. Obviously, Cuba isn't perfect, and through mismanagement and trade wars its socialist state failed. but obviously, Capitalism has worked for the majority either.