What are you really saying though?

Here charities do sell a lot of this food, where it's possible and viable to do so.

You can't sell food which is out of date because there's a high likelihood it will be harmful.

Yes, there is a lot of food waste, but IMO that's the inefficiency of logistics rather than greed or trust.

we could make lobbying illegal, but then what would be the point of becoming a public servant?

We couldn't have such a thing here because the surrounding cities round up and dump all their crackheads and methheads here, meaning nothing that isn't nailed down can sit outdoors without being stolen within the hour. They're a plague here and the police are completely and utterly useless.

my city has bike repair stations that are like this.

after a few months, all the tools are stolen or destroyed. now there are a ton of shitty bike repair stations around the city that are all broken.

Some places have tool libraries which work the same way.

Tool libraries are a thing, lots are setup by the community hall.

I mean...

We have governments for a reason, there's nothing stopping a local government from making a "tool library" where someone who needs a tool can go, get documentation or maybe even training, and check the tool out.

Since it would be an actual government program, we could even have a city worker staffing it.

Like, there's actual good things we can do with the money we seize from billionaires via taxes.

However you start talking gas powered tools like chainsaws and mowers, and there's going to need to be a maintenance budget.

Idk if it's so simple. I'm a part of some community efforts along those lines and inventory management still needs done. Not to say "your dream is impossible", quite the contrary. Recognize the radical template that the library gives us!

I would want a community printer!

Sorry, I'm gonna be that guy; this is one of those thought terminating cliches that people love to repeat, but it doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny.

Everything you just described is a problem with literally any political system, as you yourself acknowledged. You literally shot down your own argument, in the same breath as you made it, and then left the falsehood hanging out there anyway. Why? If you've already determined that your case against communism, specifically, is actually just a case against all forms of corruption in any political system, so why would you even post this?

And to dig further into the underlying premise, the idea that Communism "can't work because people can't be trusted" is genuinely ludicrous. Let's set aside the arguments about political corruption, because you already disposed of those yourself, and consider the other framing this is usually given; that any form of commons will be abused. That people are lazy, or selfish, and so sharing is impossible. This sounds intuitively correct, but it simply isn't true.

First off, communism actually requires less trust in people, not more. Communism says "Let's share resources equitably. Let's make sure people actually have what they need so that no one person can take too much." It's capitalism that says "Let's give everyone the freedom to take as much as they can and then blindly trust that somehow a few individuals won't climb their way to the top and horde everything for themselves." The whole "People are greedy" argument is an argument against capitalism, and it's the exact problem that communism solves.

Then there's the "People are lazy and no one will work" argument. We've actually tested this. Multiple countries have run trials of UBI, and in every single case, employment actually went up. When you pay people to do anything they want, including not working, it turns out people actually want to work. People like feeling useful. People like having things to do, and contributing to stuff, and feeling like they're making a mark. The claim that everyone is inherently lazy is thoroughly debunked bullshit peddled by right wing news networks, with no basis in reality.

There's this adage, "The tragedy of the commons"; "commons" referred to land and other resources that were held in common good. Most typically, a "commons" would be a piece of land in a village where everyone could graze their animals. These eventually went away, and the saying supposes that it did so because of a fundamental human failing; a thing shared by everyone became everyone's responsibility, and so it became no one's responsibility. Everyone left the care of the commons to someone else, and so the commons died uncared for.

This adage is complete bullshit. Commons existed for hundreds of years without issue. They went away when we started allowing wealthy capitalists to buy and enclose those common lands and start charging rent for them, or building on them. The people who shared the commons did so without issue for generations. It was allowing a greedy few to do whatever they wanted that killed them.

You're right, we should try to do better. So maybe be the change, and stop repeating right-wing propaganda. They've got enough people on their payroll spreading these lies for them, you don't need to do it for free.

Socialism has always worked. Power is not a supernatural corrupting force, nor is socialism especially weak to corruption as compared to capitalism. Socialism has been a tremendous advancement everywhere it has been established, even in the face of foreign siege. The idea that all systems are the same in effect is an abstraction that is entirely unrelated to the material reality of socialism as compared to capitalism.

Do this not exist where you live?

don't most campuses and other public health places have free condoms?

Feels like the only issue here is the "unsupervised" part. A simple mechanical dispenser would solve the problem.

If people could be trusted, STD could be a thing of the past.

How is bowling together bad because you can’t trust people? I mean how do you cheat at bowling? Sorry but I’m confused what you were trying to say