Socialism amplifies inertia, bussiness stagnation and promotes generalized sloth. Look at the welfare system people actually get paid for doing nothing, for contibuting nothing to societies. In welfare societies the economic incentive against skill acquisition, education and plain hard work is killing the economic growth prospects.
Ok every once in a while you fall in life you need a safety net, but you cannot give people incentives to live in the safety net forever.
They have DOWNS syndrome cuz there dumb fucks that don't know any arguments other than, fascist, rascist, sexist, nazi, white supremacist. In socialism napping all day makes you rich and hard work makes you a poor fuck. Then there's a dumbass leader that makes you a retarted socialist. USA will become the next Venezuela or North Korea.
What incentives are there for anyone to work if things are provided? Free education, free healthcare, free housing, free food. If I get these things free, heck even I would not work. Why even go to school when everything is paid for? Why work? Just let the rich people pay our living (the government don't pay. They rob from the people who works in the form of tax for the social/welfare programs.
What faulty argument is that - by ensuring that the poorest of society can maintain a certain quality of life in turn lifts up society as a whole. If a person works hard for her/his future, then she/he deserves all the richness associated with it. Why does she/he have to be penalized through more taxing so her/his wealth can be distributed to help the poorest of society, many of whom do not want to need to work exactly because of these hand-offs. How does that lift up society? Those people are parasites and therefore they should be considered as such. If the poorest of society wants to maintain a certain quality of life, they should work hard for it just like the rest of us.
It is absolutely a disease. It is a dangerous mindset where people have absolutely no sense of self responsibility and think it acceptable that our lives are dictated by the government. Taking away one's responsibility has dangerous consequences for society as a whole and especially economically. The nanny state usually results in dependents who have no clue how to think for themselves which results in sickening things like what we had in Nazi Germany and what we currently have in North Korea. Any system that tries to dictate how we live, is dangerous.
No one has perfect knowledge, perfect ability or perfect foresight. Luck is often involved. A social system merely means recognizing that opportunities will not necessarily create themselves even if someone is perfectly capable and self-responsible. Socialism as a system recognizes that there needs to be some sort of safety net and social opportunities for community involvement. I agree that some self-governing can be helpful but since humanity involves groups that exclude others this can just be a hidden form of discrimination and social networking that does not improve the overall human condition. That being said the best way to implement programs is to have a 2 tier system so capitalism and innovation thrives while there is a common safety net say a living wage that will force people to make trade-offs between family size and consumption ability.
Socialism is an economic policy in which the resources of society are pooled to provide for the good of all. For example, Canada and France are socialist economys. This ensures that the poorest of society can maintain a certain quality of life which in turn lifts up society as a whole. On the other hand, capitalist countries like the United States have a shrinking middle class and a rapidly growing working class that does not have access to the same benefits as everyone else.
From my understanding, socialism is just a political idea. Like different parties have different political opinions. Differ religious have their own Gods. Socialism is also an idea how people should work and allocate the profit. It is what this party believe to achieve an ideal world. So, I think it is not a disease.
It's actually an economic political philosophy. But I get it, you're using a metaphor. And still, no. If anything is a disease it's dismissive, emotional attitudes towards political ideas that promote decay and atrophy in the collective human matrix of ideas and goals. The disease is the carcinogenic mental-block and bias placed against ideas that such institutions as corporate news networks (fox) have complete incentive to instill in the masses of its zombie followers a vehement, visceral and non-logical hatred for something that threatens their power.