Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[cbeast]

"Bill never realized that sex was the cause of it all." - Google it.

[a447513372]

Socialism destroys wealth until everyone is at the level of the least common denominators level of poverty.

Capitalism creates wealth and gives people with interests and motivation the ability to separate themselves from the least common denominators.

I think that China going from a Communism economic (very close to socialism economy) to a partial capitalism economy is proof that this is true and that capitalism is much better then socialism (aka Obamaism). The standard of living in China has increased greatly since they have become a partial capitalistic economy 

[cutesakura]

there may be other systems that can cope with poverty, the Islamic system, the system of charity, which is between the rich subsidize the poor with charity system, in Islam, there are the rights of the poor in the wealth of the rich, so that every rich person is required to spend zakat amounting 2.5% ...
This case needs to be tried as a solution to overcome poverty in the world ... good luck ... 

[Bitmore]

I think capitalism is the root of all evil and that being said i will say socialism is the solution of poverty .

I disagree.  Socialism has NEVER been a practical solution to poverty.  In fact, it makes EVERYONE equally poor in practice.

I think Capitalism (which is a term created by Karl Marx to describe the free market), if it is to work, REQUIRES morality, and charity, and can very much be a horrible system at it's worst, however there is nothing that comes close to it at it's best.

And Socialism at it's worst is pure hell on earth.   At it's best, socialism cannot compete, and is incredibly inefficient, as well as inhumane.   Anyone who saw Stalin's USSR, or Mao's China, or Pol Pots Cambodia, or Kim Il Sung's North Korea will attest to the lack of ANY freedoms, and rule by terror.  

It is ironic that the system of Socialism claims to work "in the name of the people", never seems to fulfill that promise.  In fact, Socialism's security is diametrically opposed to, and opposite of Capitalism's freedom, in a zero sum equation;  The more of one, the less of the other.   And the worlds worst atrocities have been done under socialist pogroms, upwards of 40 million innocent Soviet civilians under Stalin's purges (did you see the Russian movie I posted above The Checkist?) and upwards of 60 million Chinese in Mao's cannibalism in the Great Famine and cultural revolution.

Given the choice, I would rather live in absolute freedom, risking anarchy, than the jack boot of big government on my neck.

Socialism has been around for over 100 years now, and it has never worked.

NEVER.

[gts476]

Socialism was invalidated by Ludwig Von Mises in 1920 in his book Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, it's 2014, almost 100 years later.

Dear socialists, learn to fucking read.

[Bitmore]

Socialism was invalidated by Ludwig Von Mises in 1920 in his book Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, it's 2014, almost 100 years later.

Dear socialists, learn to fucking read.

Absolutely!

Austrian economics WORKS. (unlike Keynesian economics)
Here is a short video, actually a rap, that condenses a semester of ECON 101 into a song, and is quite entertaining;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Another great book is F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom".

[glub0x]

I think capitalism is the root of all evil and that being said i will say socialism is the solution of poverty .

I disagree.  Socialism has NEVER been a practical solution to poverty.  In fact, it makes EVERYONE equally poor in practice.

I think Capitalism (which is a term created by Karl Marx to describe the free market), if it is to work, REQUIRES morality, and charity, and can very much be a horrible system at it's worst, however there is nothing that comes close to it at it's best.

And Socialism at it's worst is pure hell on earth.   At it's best, socialism cannot compete, and is incredibly inefficient, as well as inhumane.   Anyone who saw Stalin's USSR, or Mao's China, or Pol Pots Cambodia, or Kim Il Sung's North Korea will attest to the lack of ANY freedoms, and rule by terror.  

It is ironic that the system of Socialism claims to work "in the name of the people", never seems to fulfill that promise.  In fact, Socialism's security is diametrically opposed to, and opposite of Capitalism's freedom, in a zero sum equation;  The more of one, the less of the other.   And the worlds worst atrocities have been done under socialist pogroms, upwards of 40 million innocent Soviet civilians under Stalin's purges (did you see the Russian movie I posted above The Checkist?) and upwards of 60 million Chinese in Mao's cannibalism in the Great Famine and cultural revolution.

Given the choice, I would rather live in absolute freedom, risking anarchy, than the jack boot of big government on my neck.

Socialism has been around for over 100 years now, and it has never worked.

NEVER.

Read about the 19century in europe. No socialism there, nice economic boom, pure capitalism mixed it is true with colonialism.
Marx has spotted children of 2years old working in some lace factory. I just can't imagine a kid doing anything usefull at that age. In this industry the norm was to train them at 3 and get them to work at 4. He might be the angel of hell to you but others spoke about the working condition during that period.
Under this fantastic period of history mankind actually shrink not in quantity but in size. Due to the working conditions, poeple simply shrink. Put your kid in a box for 14hours per day without a windows from 6 to 18 years old, i bet he won't pass 1m60.
This is no mass murder it is true, it is pure capitalism with no rule except the one linking he who owns the capital to human meat who doesn't. Nobody broke any law here, yet working conditions was probably comparable to soviet goulag on the scale of a country.

It is quite easy to have extreme exemples to defend ideological stance. but it is of no use.
I am not defending any socialist nor capitalist as this is just ideological shit baked by some extreme useless exemple.

[boumalo]

I think capitalism is the root of all evil and that being said i will say socialism is the solution of poverty .

I disagree.  Socialism has NEVER been a practical solution to poverty.  In fact, it makes EVERYONE equally poor in practice.

I think Capitalism (which is a term created by Karl Marx to describe the free market), if it is to work, REQUIRES morality, and charity, and can very much be a horrible system at it's worst, however there is nothing that comes close to it at it's best.

And Socialism at it's worst is pure hell on earth.   At it's best, socialism cannot compete, and is incredibly inefficient, as well as inhumane.   Anyone who saw Stalin's USSR, or Mao's China, or Pol Pots Cambodia, or Kim Il Sung's North Korea will attest to the lack of ANY freedoms, and rule by terror.  

It is ironic that the system of Socialism claims to work "in the name of the people", never seems to fulfill that promise.  In fact, Socialism's security is diametrically opposed to, and opposite of Capitalism's freedom, in a zero sum equation;  The more of one, the less of the other.   And the worlds worst atrocities have been done under socialist pogroms, upwards of 40 million innocent Soviet civilians under Stalin's purges (did you see the Russian movie I posted above The Checkist?) and upwards of 60 million Chinese in Mao's cannibalism in the Great Famine and cultural revolution.

Given the choice, I would rather live in absolute freedom, risking anarchy, than the jack boot of big government on my neck.

Socialism has been around for over 100 years now, and it has never worked.

NEVER.

Read about the 19century in europe. No socialism there, nice economic boom, pure capitalism mixed it is true with colonialism.
Marx has spotted children of 2years old working in some lace factory. I just can't imagine a kid doing anything usefull at that age. In this industry the norm was to train them at 3 and get them to work at 4. He might be the angel of hell to you but others spoke about the working condition during that period.
Under this fantastic period of history mankind actually shrink not in quantity but in size. Due to the working conditions, poeple simply shrink. Put your kid in a box for 14hours per day without a windows from 6 to 18 years old, i bet he won't pass 1m60.
This is no mass murder it is true, it is pure capitalism with no rule except the one linking he who owns the capital to human meat who doesn't. Nobody broke any law here, yet working conditions was probably comparable to soviet goulag on the scale of a country.

It is quite easy to have extreme exemples to defend ideological stance. but it is of no use.
I am not defending any socialist nor capitalist as this is just ideological shit baked by some extreme useless exemple.

People were choosing to work in factories and everyone ended up benefiting of the wealth created, leaving the market fix prices and regulating lightly doesn't mean you have no rules, you just have good ones

[Bitmore]

I think capitalism is the root of all evil and that being said i will say socialism is the solution of poverty .

I disagree.  Socialism has NEVER been a practical solution to poverty.  In fact, it makes EVERYONE equally poor in practice.

I think Capitalism (which is a term created by Karl Marx to describe the free market), if it is to work, REQUIRES morality, and charity, and can very much be a horrible system at it's worst, however there is nothing that comes close to it at it's best.

And Socialism at it's worst is pure hell on earth.   At it's best, socialism cannot compete, and is incredibly inefficient, as well as inhumane.   Anyone who saw Stalin's USSR, or Mao's China, or Pol Pots Cambodia, or Kim Il Sung's North Korea will attest to the lack of ANY freedoms, and rule by terror.  

It is ironic that the system of Socialism claims to work "in the name of the people", never seems to fulfill that promise.  In fact, Socialism's security is diametrically opposed to, and opposite of Capitalism's freedom, in a zero sum equation;  The more of one, the less of the other.   And the worlds worst atrocities have been done under socialist pogroms, upwards of 40 million innocent Soviet civilians under Stalin's purges (did you see the Russian movie I posted above The Checkist?) and upwards of 60 million Chinese in Mao's cannibalism in the Great Famine and cultural revolution.

Given the choice, I would rather live in absolute freedom, risking anarchy, than the jack boot of big government on my neck.

Socialism has been around for over 100 years now, and it has never worked.

NEVER.

Read about the 19century in europe. No socialism there, nice economic boom, pure capitalism mixed it is true with colonialism.
Marx has spotted children of 2years old working in some lace factory. I just can't imagine a kid doing anything usefull at that age. In this industry the norm was to train them at 3 and get them to work at 4. He might be the angel of hell to you but others spoke about the working condition during that period.
Under this fantastic period of history mankind actually shrink not in quantity but in size. Due to the working conditions, poeple simply shrink. Put your kid in a box for 14hours per day without a windows from 6 to 18 years old, i bet he won't pass 1m60.
This is no mass murder it is true, it is pure capitalism with no rule except the one linking he who owns the capital to human meat who doesn't. Nobody broke any law here, yet working conditions was probably comparable to soviet goulag on the scale of a country.

It is quite easy to have extreme exemples to defend ideological stance. but it is of no use.
I am not defending any socialist nor capitalist as this is just ideological shit baked by some extreme useless exemple.

Perhaps you missed it, but my very first statement on the post above was that for Capitalism to work there has to be morality, and charity.   The child labor was of course brutal.  The socialist system is even more so.   And 19th century Europe was by no means the highest form of the free market.
 

Look at the achievements of the respective systems, and you will find all the major advancements happening in capitalistic systems, while socialism produced,,, what,,, the AK-47?  Lake Karachay?  Yamantau Mountain?

[oblivi]

I think capitalism is the root of all evil and that being said i will say socialism is the solution of poverty .

I disagree.  Socialism has NEVER been a practical solution to poverty.  In fact, it makes EVERYONE equally poor in practice.

I think Capitalism (which is a term created by Karl Marx to describe the free market), if it is to work, REQUIRES morality, and charity, and can very much be a horrible system at it's worst, however there is nothing that comes close to it at it's best.

And Socialism at it's worst is pure hell on earth.   At it's best, socialism cannot compete, and is incredibly inefficient, as well as inhumane.   Anyone who saw Stalin's USSR, or Mao's China, or Pol Pots Cambodia, or Kim Il Sung's North Korea will attest to the lack of ANY freedoms, and rule by terror.  

It is ironic that the system of Socialism claims to work "in the name of the people", never seems to fulfill that promise.  In fact, Socialism's security is diametrically opposed to, and opposite of Capitalism's freedom, in a zero sum equation;  The more of one, the less of the other.   And the worlds worst atrocities have been done under socialist pogroms, upwards of 40 million innocent Soviet civilians under Stalin's purges (did you see the Russian movie I posted above The Checkist?) and upwards of 60 million Chinese in Mao's cannibalism in the Great Famine and cultural revolution.

Given the choice, I would rather live in absolute freedom, risking anarchy, than the jack boot of big government on my neck.

Socialism has been around for over 100 years now, and it has never worked.

NEVER.

Read about the 19century in europe. No socialism there, nice economic boom, pure capitalism mixed it is true with colonialism.
Marx has spotted children of 2years old working in some lace factory. I just can't imagine a kid doing anything usefull at that age. In this industry the norm was to train them at 3 and get them to work at 4. He might be the angel of hell to you but others spoke about the working condition during that period.
Under this fantastic period of history mankind actually shrink not in quantity but in size. Due to the working conditions, poeple simply shrink. Put your kid in a box for 14hours per day without a windows from 6 to 18 years old, i bet he won't pass 1m60.
This is no mass murder it is true, it is pure capitalism with no rule except the one linking he who owns the capital to human meat who doesn't. Nobody broke any law here, yet working conditions was probably comparable to soviet goulag on the scale of a country.

It is quite easy to have extreme exemples to defend ideological stance. but it is of no use.
I am not defending any socialist nor capitalist as this is just ideological shit baked by some extreme useless exemple.

People were choosing to work in factories and everyone ended up benefiting of the wealth created, leaving the market fix prices and regulating lightly doesn't mean you have no rules, you just have good ones

The only ones that benefited where the guys running factories. Of course the workers benefited when the alternative was death, duh.

[Bitmore]

I don't think if you look in North Korea, Russia, or China or any other socialist paradise that you will find an EPA, child labor laws, or OSHA.   

You will find how if you as a citizen of those places complain of any poor or lacking treatment, will find yourself in deep shit if you ever ask for such protections though.  You might be lucky to survive to make it to a Gulag, where labor laws are.... well you work until you are dead.  Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn wrote extensively on that subject being one of the few survivors of that treatment.

[glub0x]

I don't think if you look in North Korea, Russia, or China or any other socialist paradise that you will find an EPA, child labor laws, or OSHA.  

You will find how if you as a citizen of those places complain of any poor or lacking treatment, will find yourself in deep shit if you ever ask for such protections though.  You might be lucky to survive to make it to a Gulag, where labor laws are.... well you work until you are dead.  Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn wrote extensively on that subject being one of the few survivors of that treatment.

if your definition of socialism is a dictatorship then of course your right. But things tend to be a bit more complicated.

Perhaps you missed it, but my very first statement on the post above was that for Capitalism to work there has to be morality, and charity.   The child labor was of course brutal.  The socialist system is even more so.   And 19th century Europe was by no means the highest form of the free market.
 

Look at the achievements of the respective systems, and you will find all the major advancements happening in capitalistic systems, while socialism produced,,, what,,, the AK-47?  Lake Karachay?  Yamantau Mountain?

What you call morality and charity is what i call socialism. To much of morality and charity is bad. To few is bad too.
19 century was a paradise for capitalism because very few rules was preventing you to do anything you want. At that time working 18 hours a day was normal and working 16h was charity.

Those too words you used remind me of a movie ( agora i think ) about the birth of cristianism. Where in a cast sociaty some stranges guys start to claim that it is good to share with the poor and (worst) that all men are equals in front of god. What a revolution! This idea of equality and sharing that you would call morality and charity, really looks like early socialism to me.

Capitalism has nothing to do with sharing or men equality. Capitalism has to do with turning 2 into 4. It is indeed a good idea but not at all price.
At some point China is much more capitalist than the USA which is the thing i found hilarious  given the state of mind and the examples here...

Socialism as loads of meanings. I do not think that socialism = "communist" dictatorship but again if you prefer call it morality and charity.
As an exemple in france socialism manage to get workers Holliday, limiting work-hours, man/women equality, recently gay mariage ...

[username18333]

With a market you have lower prices, competition, lots of innovation and with socialism you have coercion, higher prices and very low innovation

"With a market you have lower prices [on crap], competition [for crap], lots of [innovative crap] and with socialism you have [communism], higher prices [all crap] and very low innovation [in crap]."

You missed that since wealth is the primary concern of both systems, they both falter in pursuing the ends of wealth (think: "quality of life" [as opposed to "standard of living"]).

Crap like food? Crap like medicine? Crap like the technology you just used the write that crap statement with?

In the pursuit of wealth a capitalist is able to allocate resources towards the greater wants of a society, for in a free market if profit is supernormal in any area then the product of the area is under produced and the supernormal profit indicates that resources should be reallocated to this area.

Key idea: Profit is the signal to entrepreneurs that resources should be allocated towards or away from any given area.

Virtue is the sole sustenance of humanity. A human system disbarring the development of its virtue is a system seeking their (eventual) damnation.

[username18333]

With a market you have lower prices, competition, lots of innovation and with socialism you have coercion, higher prices and very low innovation

"With a market you have lower prices [on crap], competition [for crap], lots of [innovative crap] and with socialism you have [communism], higher prices [all crap] and very low innovation [in crap]."

You missed that since wealth is the primary concern of both systems, they both falter in pursuing the ends of wealth (think: "quality of life" [as opposed to "standard of living"]).

The market brought 1Billion of chinese out of extreme poverty, you can't disregard that and created awesome lifes for tens of millions in the States, the trend reverses as the State started growing too much a few decades ago

What humanity have they known by this such that one may cease to term them "dust?"

I tell you, so long as their entropy is insufficient for the denying them physical structure, they are but dust.

[Bitmore]

I don't think if you look in North Korea, Russia, or China or any other socialist paradise that you will find an EPA, child labor laws, or OSHA.  

You will find how if you as a citizen of those places complain of any poor or lacking treatment, will find yourself in deep shit if you ever ask for such protections though.  You might be lucky to survive to make it to a Gulag, where labor laws are.... well you work until you are dead.  Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn wrote extensively on that subject being one of the few survivors of that treatment.

if your definition of socialism is a dictatorship then of course your right. But things tend to be a bit more complicated.

Perhaps you missed it, but my very first statement on the post above was that for Capitalism to work there has to be morality, and charity.   The child labor was of course brutal.  The socialist system is even more so.   And 19th century Europe was by no means the highest form of the free market.
 

Look at the achievements of the respective systems, and you will find all the major advancements happening in capitalistic systems, while socialism produced,,, what,,, the AK-47?  Lake Karachay?  Yamantau Mountain?

What you call morality and charity is what i call socialism. To much of morality and charity is bad. To few is bad too.
19 century was a paradise for capitalism because very few rules was preventing you to do anything you want. At that time working 18 hours a day was normal and working 16h was charity.

Those too words you used remind me of a movie ( agora i think ) about the birth of cristianism. Where in a cast sociaty some stranges guys start to claim that it is good to share with the poor and (worst) that all men are equals in front of god. What a revolution! This idea of equality and sharing that you would call morality and charity, really looks like early socialism to me.

Capitalism has nothing to do with sharing or men equality. Capitalism has to do with turning 2 into 4. It is indeed a good idea but not at all price.
At some point China is much more capitalist than the USA which is the thing i found hilarious  given the state of mind and the examples here...

Socialism as loads of meanings. I do not think that socialism = "communist" dictatorship but again if you prefer call it morality and charity.
As an exemple in france socialism manage to get workers Holliday, limiting work-hours, man/women equality, recently gay mariage ...

Europe is NOT an example of a sustainable form of Capitalism/socialism.  It IS failing.

Capitalism does require -some- regulation, but too much and you kill the golden egg laying goose.   

And EQUALITY OF OUTCOME is not a desirable goal.   Only in OPPORTUNITY, requiring incentive and motive, as outlined in the Declaration and Constitution in protecting individual rights over group rights.  Forced charity is not charity, but force.
 
There is a myth among many that seem to think that the growing inequality between classes is the fault of the far right and extreme capitalism, when in fact it is the left or socialistic policies and 'crony capitalism' that increase that gap by obstructing class mobility;  RESULTING IN REDUCED "CLASS MOBILITY".   For example, raise taxes on the rich and what happens?  The rich pay tax attorneys who get them a lower end tax rate than the low class, or no taxes at all, while the middle class ends up with a higher obstacle to succeed and gain wealth by paying proportionally a much higher burden because we all can't afford a tax attorney.  Thus moving from middle to upper class is obstructed by socialistic good intentions.

THat is the key to maximizing personal liberty, respecting personal property, and reducing the gap between the upper and lower class; TO INCREASE CLASS MOBILITY as a goal, or the ability to move up in class,,,OR DOWN,,, if you fail, as ENRON did, GM did, and the huge bailout "stimulus" at the end of the Bush administration to save banks who were "too big to fail".  THAT was Bush's major failure; he should have let them fail, and broken them up like the baby Bells.  THAT is why we have had an anemic economic recovery, with high unemployment, poor workforce participation and the highest number of people on welfare and food stamps ever.   

Nothing or nobody is 'too big to fail' or you risk not having any risk in business which defines success for the majority. 

It is all about "CLASS MOBILITY".  To deny that is to deny human nature in working in self interest;  a mistake the Soviets made when they tried to create the "New Soviet Man" who would have no self interest, but only act in the interest of the collective.

[username18333]

I don't think if you look in North Korea, Russia, or China or any other socialist paradise that you will find an EPA, child labor laws, or OSHA.  

You will find how if you as a citizen of those places complain of any poor or lacking treatment, will find yourself in deep shit if you ever ask for such protections though.  You might be lucky to survive to make it to a Gulag, where labor laws are.... well you work until you are dead.  Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn wrote extensively on that subject being one of the few survivors of that treatment.

if your definition of socialism is a dictatorship then of course your right. But things tend to be a bit more complicated.

Perhaps you missed it, but my very first statement on the post above was that for Capitalism to work there has to be morality, and charity.   The child labor was of course brutal.  The socialist system is even more so.   And 19th century Europe was by no means the highest form of the free market.
 

Look at the achievements of the respective systems, and you will find all the major advancements happening in capitalistic systems, while socialism produced,,, what,,, the AK-47?  Lake Karachay?  Yamantau Mountain?

What you call morality and charity is what i call socialism. To much of morality and charity is bad. To few is bad too.
19 century was a paradise for capitalism because very few rules was preventing you to do anything you want. At that time working 18 hours a day was normal and working 16h was charity.

Those too words you used remind me of a movie ( agora i think ) about the birth of cristianism. Where in a cast sociaty some stranges guys start to claim that it is good to share with the poor and (worst) that all men are equals in front of god. What a revolution! This idea of equality and sharing that you would call morality and charity, really looks like early socialism to me.

Capitalism has nothing to do with sharing or men equality. Capitalism has to do with turning 2 into 4. It is indeed a good idea but not at all price.
At some point China is much more capitalist than the USA which is the thing i found hilarious  given the state of mind and the examples here...

Socialism as loads of meanings. I do not think that socialism = "communist" dictatorship but again if you prefer call it morality and charity.
As an exemple in france socialism manage to get workers Holliday, limiting work-hours, man/women equality, recently gay mariage ...

Europe is NOT an example of a sustainable form of Capitalism/socialism.  It IS failing.

Capitalism does require -some- regulation, but too much and you kill the golden egg laying goose.  

And EQUALITY OF OUTCOME is not a desirable goal.   Only in OPPORTUNITY, requiring incentive and motive, as outlined in the Declaration and Constitution in protecting individual rights over group rights.  Forced charity is not charity, but force.
  
There is a myth among many that seem to think that the growing inequality between classes is the fault of the far right and extreme capitalism, when in fact it is the left or socialistic policies and 'crony capitalism' that increase that gap by obstructing class mobility;  RESULTING IN REDUCED "CLASS MOBILITY".   For example, raise taxes on the rich and what happens?  The rich pay tax attorneys who get them a lower end tax rate than the low class, or no taxes at all, while the middle class ends up with a higher obstacle to succeed and gain wealth by paying proportionally a much higher burden because we all can't afford a tax attorney.  Thus moving from middle to upper class is obstructed by socialistic good intentions.

THat is the key to maximizing personal liberty, respecting personal property, and reducing the gap between the upper and lower class; TO INCREASE CLASS MOBILITY as a goal, or the ability to move up in class,,,OR DOWN,,, if you fail, as ENRON did, GM did, and the huge bailout "stimulus" at the end of the Bush administration to save banks who were "too big to fail".  THAT was Bush's major failure; he should have let them fail, and broken them up like the baby Bells.  THAT is why we have had an anemic economic recovery, with high unemployment, poor workforce participation and the highest number of people on welfare and food stamps ever.  

Nothing or nobody is 'too big to fail' or you risk not having any risk in business which defines success for the majority.  

It is all about "CLASS MOBILITY".  To deny that is to deny human nature in working in self interest;  a mistake the Soviets made when they tried to create the "New Soviet Man" who would have no self interest, but only act in the interest of the collective.

If government enslaved the whole of the rest of humanity, it could have them toil unto achievement until sufficient achievement (or their extinction) had been achieved.

How is that socialism detrimental to humanity?

[Bitmore]

If government enslaved the whole of the rest of humanity, it could have them toil unto achievement until sufficient achievement (or their extinction) had been achieved.

How is that socialism detrimental to humanity?

So the ends justify the means?
Just admit that please.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

[coinits]

looks like it might be ebola.

[username18333]

If government enslaved the whole of the rest of humanity, it could have them toil unto achievement until sufficient achievement (or their extinction) had been achieved.

How is that socialism detrimental to humanity?

So the ends justify the means?
Just admit that please.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

What is said is that humanity bears sensibility insufficient for its own excession. Indeed, something exceeding them must hail upon the beast for that.

[Bitmore]

looks like it might be ebola.

That is an interesting point.  

Ebola, if it requires quarantine, could tear apart our liberties and freedoms and way of life for the socialistic "for the people".    

That is if the government (or Russians who had the bio-weapons development since they cheated the Chem/Bio weapons treaty since the 1973 treaty) didn't create the whole disease/crisis in the first place.