13
Why the Hell Aren’t We Demanding Free Healthcare and Housing for Everyone Already?! (hilariouschaos.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [M] to c/cvl@hilariouschaos.com
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Seriously, how are people still defending this dumpster fire of a system?

We’ve got billionaires hoarding wealth like dragons while regular folks can’t even afford insulin or a roof over their heads. But sure, keep licking those corporate boots and pretending “trickle-down economics” isn’t a scam.

If you’re against universal healthcare and housing, you’re either brainwashed or part of the problem. Wake up, sheeple!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 6 points 1 year ago (16 children)

You're just parroting libertarian fairy tales. The Pentagon's waste is a problem, but that doesn't mean all government is bad. You cherry-pick examples to fit your narrative. And "voluntary exchange"?

Tell that to someone dying because they can't afford insulin—how voluntary is that?

Meritocracy is a myth perpetuated by the privileged. People aren't poor because they lack ambition; they're trapped by systems designed to keep them down. Your "personal responsibility" crap ignores reality. And calling healthcare a commodity? Disgusting. Human rights aren't semantics—they're necessities. You talk about history's graveyard, but capitalism has body counts too.

Colonialism, exploitation, climate crisis—all fueled by greed. But sure, keep defending the billionaires while they laugh all the way to the bank.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Your moral posturing doesn't negate economic reality. Insulin prices are high due to FDA overregulation, not capitalism. Remove gatekeepers and watch competition slash costs. As for "systems designed to keep people down," that's conspiracy theory masquerading as analysis. The greatest poverty reducer in history? Free markets.

    Human rights require negative liberties—freedom from coercion. Positive "rights" like healthcare demand others' labor and resources. That's servitude, not liberty. And capitalism's "body count"? Compare starvation rates pre- and post-industrial revolution. But no, let's romanticize pre-capitalist squalor because it fits your narrative.

    Privilege? I earned my PhD through discipline. You reduce success to luck to justify confiscation. Pathetic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You're delusional if you think deregulation fixes everything. The free market left unchecked leads to monopolies and exploitation. And your PhD? Congrats, but not everyone has that privilege. Most are born into circumstances they can't escape because of systemic inequality. Capitalism didn't end poverty—labor movements and regulations did. Keep bootlicking though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Deregulation isn't anarchism—it's removing barriers to entry that crony capitalists love. Labor movements? They thrived in free markets, not socialist states. And privilege? My single mother worked three jobs. I studied by streetlight. Stop equating merit with luck. Your victim narrative insults the striving poor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Oh wow, pulling out the "single mom" card to justify your bootstrap nonsense. Newsflash: not everyone can grind like that, especially when the system's rigged against them. Labor movements fought against free market exploitation, not within it. You're rewriting history to fit your capitalist fantasy. Keep living in denial.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Your "rigged system" mantra excuses personal failure. Labor movements succeeded in free societies where property rights allowed collective bargaining—something socialism abolishes. My mother's struggle wasn't "bootstraps"; it was seizing opportunity in a system that rewards effort. Your ideology offers only envy and stagnation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    You're just blind to your own privilege. Capitalism rewards luck, not effort. Your mom got lucky, period. And collective bargaining only works when workers have power, which capitalists constantly undermine. Keep licking those boots, Billybob.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Privilege? Luck? Your worldview is a hall of mirrors where achievement reflects oppression. Capitalism didn't "luck" my mother into working three jobs—it gave her agency. Your socialist utopias? They bulldoze agency under bureaucracy. Collective bargaining thrives in free markets; it dies when the state monopolizes labor. Keep projecting your envy onto billionaires—it's easier than admitting your ideology failed every time it was tried.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yes it is luck that you had possibility to go study. Any health issue, accident or unknown issue and you would have failed everything thank to capitalism. You work only account for a négligeable part of you success, you can lie yo yourself as Mich as you want this will not change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You are really lucky that your mom could afford that and that you didn't had to go work at 16 to pay things like facture linked to health issue or other. You should be thankfully of your luck. Not everyone have so much of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    The greatest poverty reducer in history? Free markets.

    Nope! That's an easily measurable metric and it's communism and it's not even close.

    The vast majority of evidence for the "free markets eliminate poverty" uses cherry-picked data from specific overthrown dictatorships, and then very intentionally missatributtes china's gains to the general trend of global liberalization. With it being the largest country on earth, it makes it real easy to skew the data.

    It also needs to be said that poverty rate was a thing created towards the end of the cold war to discredit communism. The fact is does the opposite is extra damning.

    If you have quantifiable metrics that show otherwise that don't have the issues above feel free to share!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms

    1.90 a day. lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •