(September 21, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Koolay Wrote:(September 21, 2013 at 6:00 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I never claimed it did.
You were the one who made the complaint about disproportionate benefit from one economic system. One could reasonably presume that you could recommend a system that is not flawed in that manner? In keeping with your professed libertarian ideals, such a system would necessarily feature economic freedom, yes?
Apparently subtlety is lost on you. I'll use smaller words next time.
Well, I am just bringing it back to fact based level. Statists always talk about how the government helps this and that, yet they are empirically wrong, as the facts almost always contradict with what they claim.
The less coercive and violent a society is, the better it is for the most vulnerable members of that society - this is pretty fundamental. My solution is to stop using violence to solve complex social issues like income inequality, since it will inevitably do the opposite. And the facts back this up.
My system, if you could call it that, is simply a free market, where everyone is subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else. Non aggression principles, respect for property rights.
You're using the wrong metric if you're criticising socialism, then. Socialism doesn't seek to equalize income, it seeks to equalize access to human needs, such a food, water, shelter, and health care. None of those things are going to be measurable as income under a socialist system.
Something, I note, that your way would suck donkey balls at.
Incidentally, I'll point out that the rich and powerful benefit disproportionately under ever economic system ever implemented. That you use this against your socialist boogeyman is pretty fucking weak, even for you.