Not really. Insurance was created to pay for unlikely expenses such as your house burning down. Socialism pays for guaranteed expenses such as food and shelter. They're not that much alike.

It's just the exercise of power by the people in power. Humanity and empathy don't matter to them. The only fairness and justice they care about relates to events from 50-200 years ago, because their power stems from organizing against those old grievances. Fairness and justice here and now would limit their power, so they're eager to advocate unfair and unjust policies. That's who you're dealing with.

My limited success is largely my own. But that's not really the point.

The point is that we can't really have a society where we make decisions based on arguments like "give me what I want because ... fuck you". You can talk to people and get them to agree when you actually want something beneficial to all instead something that benefits person A at the expense of, and with zero regard or concern for, person B. That's what we've been missing for a long time. Where did it go?

When can we go back to "mutual benefit" instead of "us versus them"?

You obviously have nothing to offer the conversation, so fuck off.

To everyone else, the question was: Why should a guy earning a paycheck agree to Socialism?

It was actually answered below by someone not being a complete douchebag like this guy. If you earn a paycheck or if you want a better society that benefits all, see the post below where I thank the guy for finally coming up with a genuine answer to the question.

One thing about police protection is that everyone who pays taxes receives the benefit of the protection bought with those taxes. Benefit checks, on the other hand, are just taken from person A and given to person B without any regard for person A at all.

Your answer starts toward the idea that a payer might somehow benefit himself from transfer payments and from services he won't receive himself. See below where I've thanked the guy who actually got there.

This is the very first genuine answer offered. Thank you.

Everyone pay attention! This is how we actually create a society based on mutual benefit: by proposing answers that are actually intended to benefit all. I'm not sure it why we'd expect it to work, but it's at least an attempt at something besides the "gimme what I want because ... fuck you" from the rest of the people on here. I hope everyone can note the difference.

I actually think you are correct. If the programs were built by people who genuinely wanted to help, who valued the money as if it were their family's money, and who tested their progress based on rigorous metrics for success, life would be a lot better for the poor and for people who earn a paycheck.

I'd be willing to adopt that kid. He would probably be grateful.

But I'm not sure why I should agree to have my paycheck raided by people who have zero regard for me.

You don't know me.

People who threaten violence to extort money are extortionists.

The point was, once you pay an extortionist once, what's to keep him from threatening you the next time (especially since you just taught him that it works)?

I'm not "screwing them". I'm minding my own business working and earning a paycheck. They are the ones who want to take from me. Without asking, and without a thank you. Why should I agree? Why should anyone who earns a paycheck agree?

I don't mind working either. But I would like to keep the money I earn. The question is, why should I want Socialism when it seems designed to only make life worse for me?

"Solutions" where non-workers benefit at the paycheck earner's expense, with zero benefit to the paycheck earner, are hard to sell to the paycheck earner. Why would he agree?

"Because the paycheck earner still has more than the non-working benefit recipient" is a new argument with no threats or magic. So that's something. But the worker is still considerably poorer than he was before his paycheck was raided. So I'm not sure why he would want to agree to it unless there were some really good reason. That's why I'm asking: what's supposed to convince him?

I wish someone could tell me why I should be happy my paycheck gets raided to pay for benefits for people who seem to have zero regard for me or other paycheck earners.

This argument was already covered above. I can protect myself for a modest outlay that's a lot less than I'm already paying in taxes.

And even if I couldn't, I don't know why I should think that paying off violent extortionists would result in anything but more violent extortion. Why do you think it might?

History tells me that bad things eventually happen to every society. There's not one single example of any system that endured permanently in peace. So what's the lesson? (Personally, the lesson I learned is not to use "look at history..." as an argument for anything.)

That's an even less interesting argument than "pay us or we'll kill you". What's the point supposed to be?

Apparently working and earning a paycheck so that non-workers can take your earnings and offer you nothing but threats in return is supposed to be considered a privilege. Why would anyone who works and earns a paycheck agree that it is?

Not really. The majority of people produce more than they consume. Where would government handouts come from if they didn't?

I produce more than I consume and save the after-tax excess for when I'm 80 or 90. I buy insurance for if I get injured or if I get ALS. That's what the word "responsible" means.

But that doesn't answer the original question. Why should someone who works and is responsible support Socialism when it only costs him and never benefits him?

Do the other members of society owe a moral debt to the guy who pays for their "standard of living"? Should they? In what way should this moral debt be paid?

Because utopian cartoon worlds aren't real. But I agree that Socialism is a great idea for utopian cartoon worlds. I'm glad we were able to find common ground and reach a genuine understanding.