My point was that if you (generic "you"
are looking to address an issue with an idea, but without the idea taking into account significant parts of that issue, the idea is inherently flawed.
are looking to address an issue with an idea, but without the idea taking into account significant parts of that issue, the idea is inherently flawed.That's like saying "Sure, perpetual motion can never work, but what's wrong with the idea?"
It's circular. The problem is that it can never work. You can't take that part out of the equation.
It's circular. The problem is that it can never work. You can't take that part out of the equation.
If that is the way you want to define flawed, then sure. I agree with both of you.
I do think that "From each acording to their ability and to each according to their need" is a good goal to strive for. The best system I've seen to approach this so far is a regulated capitalism with a social welfare "net". The problem here is tweaking the amount of regulation and the amount of social welfare. No one ever agrees on that part.
Wow, this is a big right turn from the point of the post that started this, which was just to point out that communist ideas appeal to the disenfranchised and usually ends up in a disaster. To which I would like to add: keeping people from becoming disefranchised in the first place is the best way to keep the whole thing from happening.