>>1992931It essentially goes against the idea of a limited government, which a lot of us here are keen on.
While socialism is a noble cause in concept, it is naive and ultimately harmful in practice. Socialism allows the government to become an impromptu 'charity' organization, where it takes money from taxpayers (usually masked as an increase in the tax) and redistributes it to those who need it. Who gets the money is up to the discretion of the government and how it decides a person is 'in need'. Ultimately, as it happened in the US, this creates a permanent 'needy' class where they are perpetually(read: generations) are on welfare and/or other social programs and perpetually willing to vote for more welfare.
The problems only stack on up from there. Not only do you have a class of people who are forever on welfare and always vote for more welfare, you also have the issue of how the money is actually distributed. The most simple process of this is that there is a community vault where hardworking people donate(read: are forced to through taxes) a portion of their income to this vault so that this money can be distributed to the needy. But how is this money distributed? Is it done through a lump sum of x dollars, some kind of rate, etc.? Who controls or oversees that process? The community as a whole or some arbitrary, elected official(s)? Do they give money to people they prefer or do they have a more complex system? This brings up a whole slew of legitimate questions concerning the distributor of the money and any associated third parties. What happens is that a portion of that money is not even distributed to the people it needs to go to and is instead hoarded by greedy administrators/ extorted by the overpriced services of these third parties.
(1/?)
