Sign into an existing account

It's peak socialism with 2 other siblings because they'll outvote the one doing the work.

Fuck that!

I will have them do forced labour by cleaning the bathroom and say that daddy (state) pays for everything so they have to do what daddy (state) says.

Our household is not a democracy nor a republic.

And when they grow up, I will teach them about the analogy.

But then the sibling that didn't help and received money will probably love socialism.

I would go with Mopar's version.

Technically it would be have both of your children do chores, but one of them does significantly more work than the other and split the $10 bill equally to them.

This is marxist socialism. The primary definition of modern socialism.

I call it garbage personally.

Alternatively just take away $4, keep it, and call it zionist occupied democracy

Best post of the day award.

There is still a huge problem with this viewpoint. The central government is the parental figure.

The situation is more complicated than this, and any intelligent socialist is bound to point out your unsophisticated analogy.

Take away the government for a moment. Instead, it's a handful of children stranded on an island. Things being the way they are, no single child can do every task it takes to make a suitable dinner everyday. The ingredients are spread around the island in various places, and they require various different tasks to locate and refine them. When it's all done, there still has to be someone with the knowledge to cook too.

This requires that each child specializes.

Now suppose that, if X is amount the energy (or just resources) required for a child Y to harvest a resource Z, that X is not constant for each Y and Z. Weather changes. The natural world shifts. The birds may not be laying eggs like normal. Access to a mineral may be getting harder because the surface material was used up first. One of the children may have been injured or gotten sick.

If each day's dinner is analogous to the nation's economy, then the point is not to support today's socialist welfare state, but rather to point out that allocating some of everyone's money to a pool as a form of insurance against the unknown looks like a reasonable idea, in principle. The question is always about application.

Maybe the capitalist wants to say that after a few generations, there may be an opportunity for one child to become that private insurer. Other children go to him with some of their day's 'dinner' and bank it with him, first writing a contract about how payout will occur for each loss in a list of possible losses.

After a couple more generations, a gang of children run this insurance tribe and are no different than any central government. They get to dictate the going price and set the markets. They get to dispute the contracts. Even if you set up a entirely separate tribe of kids to act as 'politicians' and 'regulators', they can be bought out by the banker kids. At first things were called voluntary. You had to opt-in. But after a while, it's compulsory, else you put the whole island at risk.

Capitalism and Communism are the same train, heading the same way, viewed from different sides of the track.

And in the end there's still nothing that can protect the entire island from Blumen4alles.