Which hypothetical system is overall worse?

[Demon Revival]

B isn't crazier. It fits exactly with human nature, which is selfish and/or gullible. People will always strive for their own power and wealth. Even if you could actieve equal shares for everyone, there would be enough greedy dogs in the mix that that equilibrium would be short-lived. In short, it isn't remotely surprising that B has happened.

Rape and murder are also part of human nature yet I see so few advocators of it. Why should this be different?

[zhaoyun]

B, though both choices suck.

I accidentally chose the wrong choice.

[wvwvw]

Best is that everyone starts off with equal share of resources, or opportunities.

[Smitty]

Rape and murder are also part of human nature yet I see so few advocators of it. Why should this be different?

The benefits of restricting rape and murder are obvious to even clinical morons. It's relatively easy to enforce because there is so little motivation to allow it.

Your economic scenario is much more complicated and would require an administrative aspect (read: government), which in turn would be made up of people. People will always, in the main, think of their own good first and the good of the masses second - if at all. This is a pipe dream for people who fancy themselves as good and think everyone else is too. It's nonsense.

I'm checking out now. Good night.

[zhaoyun]

Best is that everyone starts off with equal share of resources, or opportunities.

Although this ideal scenario would never transpire, the reality is even if it did, the distribution of resources will become pretty uneven after one or two generations just because of different habits.

[Profileid]

Communism is absolute fucking shit and ended up being a FAR more efficient vehicle for the glorification,concentration of wealth of a select few individuals than capitalism.

My family is "poor" in the US but we own two cars, our own house, tons of land. Are my standards of living worse than someone in a communist country just because the wealth is less "equally distributed"?

[paprika]

In fact that 1% has nothing to do with luck. It's all about being able to create and sustain a clan structure that will allow you to exploit imperfections of legal system at expense of others.

The only reason you rejecting that thing you call equality is because you stuck in ancient mental condition where almost everything you do have to be followed by material reward such as food or piece of shiny metal. From biochemical perspective this mentality is exactly same as chimp females prostituting themselves for a meal. And that's exactly what allows 1% to control your entire life. The concept of productive activities that do not involve material reward seems to be incomprehensible to you.

if you read what i wrote i said: "however like i said if i had to pick it's better than total equality. i'm utterly against that concept in principle, it's not fair to those who are more innately intelligent or more hardworking to redistribute to those with less merit. "

in my personal life i have never cared for material reward beyond what is necessary to sustain myself

[Demon Revival]

Jimmy Carter fans are showing up finally! 'tis getting good.

Communism is absolute fucking shit and ended up being a FAR more efficient vehicle for the glorification,concentration of wealth of a select few individuals than capitalism.

My family is "poor" in the US but we own two cars, our own house, tons of land. Are my standards of living worse than someone in a communist country just because the wealth is less "equally distributed"?

So, the fact you own 2 cars (LOL as if communist countries didn't have cars) is enough to make you feel ok in regards to 1% of the population (likely no less dumber than you) hoarding 55% of the resources of your country?

Also, assuming a communist country A and capitalist country B have the same amount of resources.. you'd indeed be poorer in the country B.

Total resources in country A = 10,000$, 1000 inhabitants = you get 10
Total resources in country B = 10,000$, 1000 inhabitants = 10 inhabitants get 5,500$ and you fight for the scrapped 4,500$ with the other 990

[Sarmatian]

B isn't crazier. It fits exactly with human nature, which is selfish and/or gullible. People will always strive for their own power and wealth. Even if you could actieve equal shares for everyone, there would be enough greedy dogs in the mix that that equilibrium would be short-lived. In short, it isn't remotely surprising that B has happened.

I disagree with you here. Selfish/gullible is trait of animal nature. One single trait that makes humans different is our ability to share food (resources) with non-related strangers. That universal ritual of sharing a meal with those you welcome to your house is foundation for every complex society humanity has ever built. So the rule is selfish/greedy = animal trait, generous/sharing = human trait.

There was time when all humanoids were animals. Now we are humans. So these things could change through evolution. Takes time and very unlikely to happen soon but we're sane and knowledgeable enough to create conditions to direct evolution of our human traits in certain way.

[Sarmatian]

if you read what i wrote i said: "however like i said if i had to pick it's better than total equality. i'm utterly against that concept in principle, it's not fair to those who are more innately intelligent or more hardworking to redistribute to those with less merit. "

But what makes you think those who are more innately intelligent or more hardworking weren't adequately rewarded in socialist system?