The difference is in its scale and locality -- there is nothing wrong with a local community taking care of itself (it can even be a rather diverse community if the people within it do agree and participate in the civil construct). Think: local food bank or local charity drive. Due to the size and reach, it may be willingly participated in because the people live in close proximity and know each other. It isn't a bad idea -- the more self-sufficient and self-autonomous a community is, the more likely individuals within that community will be able to practice the same. You will be "Bob, the guy who lives in Apt. C" rather than a number on a ledger, and thus will be treated more as Bob than your ID number. That is where socialism falls apart: it is not local and is small, and you are a statistic to be dealt with rather than a person to consider.
The leftists realize this, and that is why they want people dis-united in as many ways as possible: break down communities, break down the social construct...something has to fill its place. They've done this (same thing they've done to the smallest and most integral unit: the family).
The greatest lie ever told was this one.
Their is nothing perfect about being equal to each and every person all the time.
Our differences and inequalities are what makes us individuals. I have no interest in being a commy-bot.
No, in a perfect world socialism would not be necessary.
Our Constitutional Republic is imperfect, but it is the best one invented yet.
The most perfect form of government is a monarchy where the King is all-knowing, perfectly just and perfectly wise and loves his people with the love of a perfect father and he is immortal.
In other words, heaven with Christ ruling over it.
Socialism fails even on a small scale. Early American settlements with common storehouses for good learned this.
So true!!
The difference is in its scale and locality -- there is nothing wrong with a local community taking care of itself (it can even be a rather diverse community if the people within it do agree and participate in the civil construct). Think: local food bank or local charity drive. Due to the size and reach, it may be willingly participated in because the people live in close proximity and know each other. It isn't a bad idea -- the more self-sufficient and self-autonomous a community is, the more likely individuals within that community will be able to practice the same. You will be "Bob, the guy who lives in Apt. C" rather than a number on a ledger, and thus will be treated more as Bob than your ID number. That is where socialism falls apart: it is not local and is small, and you are a statistic to be dealt with rather than a person to consider.
The leftists realize this, and that is why they want people dis-united in as many ways as possible: break down communities, break down the social construct...something has to fill its place. They've done this (same thing they've done to the smallest and most integral unit: the family).
It's not even possible within a family unit. Ever have siblings? Gtfo with your pro commie horse shit.
The greatest lie ever told was this one.
Their is nothing perfect about being equal to each and every person all the time.
Our differences and inequalities are what makes us individuals. I have no interest in being a commy-bot.
Downvote this faggot to McCainville.
No, in a perfect world socialism would not be necessary.
Our Constitutional Republic is imperfect, but it is the best one invented yet.
The most perfect form of government is a monarchy where the King is all-knowing, perfectly just and perfectly wise and loves his people with the love of a perfect father and he is immortal.
In other words, heaven with Christ ruling over it.