No, that's Capitalism. Socialism is government taking your money and giving it to lazy poor fuckers.

As an economics major I have many problems with what you wrote, but fair enough- I will not directly attack your statement. Instead, here are some questions for you and socialism in general.

1) Where does this money for Einstein come from? Before you can just make it sound like the government magically supplies Einstein with money, you must navigate back to where that money originated. It came from a taxpayer and it came from the fruits of his/her labors. You gave money to Einstein but to do this you took money away from someone else, lets call them Newton. He now has less money.

2) What gives Einstein the right to have someone else's (Newton's) money? What injustice did Newton do to have his money taken from him? If Newton strongly opposes taxes and opposes education, what is the difference between your scenario and Einstein simply robbing Newton blind? Or as president Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical". On top of this, you gave Einstein "positive" rights that others may not have. To do this you had to take rights away from Newton.

3) What are (some of) the biggest faults of socialism? Efficiency. There have been many studies on this question and the results yielded that the government wastes 40% to 60% more money than free enterprise. I will reiterate that this money it is wasting is made up of the blood sweat and tears of workers. Government in general is INCREDIBLY INEFFICIENT. This alone is a major reason to despise socialism, governments of the world think they can fix problems since they have good intentions, but that doesn't mean they can actually accomplish good. Sure, you might have given Einstein and many others opportunities since they are deemed "deserving". However, in a purely capitalistic society there are 40% - 60% more opportunities for everyone.

Continued...

4) How does this all effect freedom? As the great economist Milton Friedman said, "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself". In other words, you can not have social freedom without at least some economic freedom as well. The closer you get to socialism, the less freedom there is.

5) What are the benefits of capitalism you are not considering? Although capitalism will leave some in the cold, as time passes the goal of capitalism is to provide opportunities so that one day poverty does not exist. It is the belief of socialists that the problems with the economy are because of institutions- this is not the case. There are problems because humans are faulty, we are not perfect. This notion can be clearly exemplified by comparing the current quality of life in America compared to 200 years ago. Another good example is comparing Hong Kong (freest economy in the world) to mainland China. Hong Kong destroys the rest of China in terms of GDP per capita, quality of life indexes, and life expectancy.

6) If socialism is ideal, then why is coercion and violence necesary to tax people? If this system you speak of is so ideal, then why don't people just give their money to Einstein in the first place? Because they are greedy. Humans are greedy, you must use threats of violence and prison to have them pay their taxes. Not only is socialism un-natural, but it is also restricting liberty since you must use force to get the system to work. Quite similar to slavery...

7) You can not have real capitalism with socialism. As it is in the US, the government attributes to 40% of the economy, that should not even be considered "capitalist" and America is the 10th freest economy.

Realize that men did not creat "right and "wrong". Justice is inbed in all humans, just because the government says it is okay to take another man's money and give it to a different man does not mean that this action actually is just.

Very true points you raise. However might sound stupid or such but i feel everyone must work together to fulfill potentionl, help your fellow man so to speak, also Einstien in the example i gave is more of a child born into a poor family? is that fair to condem a child to a life like that even though he had no choice, yes the parents could have just not had any children. The thing i have a problem with is condeming children purely due to the situation they were born into, why can't they have the same opportunity as the next person. I do see what your saying and agree on some points

In a capitalistic society Einstein has many opportunities because hard work is rewarded more in capitalism than in any other system. A venture capitalist is someone who makes bets with their investments and puts their own livelihood on the line in the hopes that they improve their wealth standings greatly. I say this because I have no doubt that if Einstein is anything like the great Albert Einstein, then a venture capitalist would be more than willing to invest in Einstein's education to put him through college because the capitalist believes he can make big returns (interest) when Einstein becomes successful. This is generally the idea of student loans and in a capitalistic society this would be very common- especially for students showing great intelligence and work ethic.

Now I understand the value of education, so as of now (I am only entering the 3rd year of my studies) I still say public schooling is acceptable (up until the end of high school). However, I think the students should have to show why they deserve of these public funds with effort. Because as you probably have noticed, many children take their education for granted and do not try their hardest- this is a trend that should be changed.

You have really changed my views and opinons on this, i suppose i could say thank you for widening my understanding :)
I agree children take it for granted and don't realise how lucky they are.

I have had very good professors and so I have gotten very good at thinking of the implications of things. My goal is not to make "change your mind", but to instead consider the unintended consequences of government policy and to look at the bigger picture. I used to be extremely liberal myself but once I learned how inefficient, corrupt, and restricting government can be I quickly became a libertarian (I support all social freedoms but also support all economic freedom).

Here is a semi-related video with one of those professors I had which exemplifies the fact that good intentions by the government do not always lead to good results (A sad truth of socialism). I think you will find it interesting:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEgNemu3mfI&list=FLyTeH1HFB6a0Y8xBZNtZXWg&index=10&feature=plpp_video

Yeah i am not really too sure where i stand... I prefer to see all sides of the arguments etc but i do think freedom is the key to a better government.
Ok thanks! I'll have a look :) Thank you!

Freedom is the key to a better life in my opinion =P.

So true, I mean with freedom great advancements i suppose can be made?

One of the reasons that I do not support socialism is because competition drives innovation. By this I mean competition between greedy people forces them to try and be creative and inventive- usually developing new technology (the great advancements you speak of) that improve the world. This form of competition exists much stronger in a free-trade economy where people have more incentives to be innovative and there are less trade restrictions.

So basically, if you put two countries in vacuums, a capitalist one and a socialist one- and don't let them trade with each other or anyone else, the capitalist one would be far more advanced over the course of time. The freedoms we have in the first world countries is the reason why we are so far ahead of 3rd world countries. This was the conclusion that Adam Smith, the father of economics, discovered.

(Sorry I really love playing devils advocate) Well, are we talking economically advance or socially advance, with a nice mixture of propaganda likely in the socialist one and the social environment would be entirely different the socialist one you'd have a society which was content with a slow advance which would in turn promote the communities within the country to wish to advance their society with the correct motivation, theres too many factors to count into it, the capitalist one would likely be extremely fractured though more technologically advance (See 1880 Britain to 1960) you would have those who were rich staying at the top and in time their sons and daughters would likely replace them in other words you could potentially end up with a scenario as aforementioned at the start of the thread where this potential kid is left out, you've also got to factor that both countries are unable to trade, countries haven't been very good at self-reliance (See early Nazi Germany and late Nazi Germany (This isn't me pulling the Nazi card Hitler just wanted the state to be self reliant ) and North Korea ) In other words both countries may find themselves screwed within a matter of years, that and both societies equally have their flaws now I feel the need to post this picture because I find it hilarious.

Either way some good points I wont distract you with your paper to do.

Yes my response was bit off topic I guess XD. Hey, I am writing this paper now and am struggled to figure out which particular points to brush upon. I realize you have socialist leaning beliefs but I would be thankful if you could give me your take (possibly so I can figure out how to improve mine).

Only respond if you wish, here is the prompt (I posted this almost a month ago):

funnyjunk.com/politics/1506#1506