Redistributing Children's Halloween Candy: A Case Study in Coerced "Fairness"
- Thread starter HMFIC
- Start Date
Did any parents at this event say anything about the guy taking their kids' candy? I saw one guy in the background chuckling, but that's about it. The looks on the kids' faces were priceless, though - poor kids, getting a reality lesson at such a young age 
Don't worry, they'll be around soon to tell us that it's not a fair comparison because kids don't represent the broad mix of society, blah blah blah.
Those kids should feel lucky to have a street to walk down that the gubment built and police to keep them safe so no bad guys steal their candy... uh well wait, back up on that one lol.
Next, they'll chime in and let us know how the kids with bad costumes who didn't get as much candy should be able to sue the people giving out candy since they were discriminated against, etc...
The biggest problem will be the kids that didn't even go trick-or-treating demanding candy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGdYhmFH-DQ&feature=player_embedded
See, in particular, about the 2-minute mark.
Also, how do you count all the kids who don't trick-or-treat? Is it in two separate groups? Are kids with costumes who want to trick-or-treat but can't find a neighborhood with lights on counted the same as kids that aren't even trying to trick-or-treat anymore?
Bring your candy to Wanenmacher's, I'm taking it all and then rationing out whatever I deem necessary.
Why I certainly don't consider myself a "liberal" and I'm certain our definitions of that word vary, I'll take the bait!
A capitalist model of this analogy is this:
Children spend hours going door to door, lugging around heavy bags of candy. Once their candy-hauling shift is over, the boss of the block takes all the candy, then distributes it amongst the children in various amounts. He/She keeps the most for his or her self (keep in mind, boss did no candy-hauling), then distributes the left-overs to the workers in much smaller, unequal amounts. The boss does this secretly, so no other children know how much each other (and certainly not the boss, although they have a good measure) received.
In either candy economy model, if you work, you're gonna get screwed. You wanna get screwed by one person? Or you wanna get screwed by the majority of the population, which thereby helps those that can't help themselves?
Last edited:
Also, to further the analogy, if we assume "candy" is "money" in our token society, and that trick-or-treating is "work", then this guy's own analogy begins from a somewhat commie standpoint. He didn't show the children actually working, because he was at least smart enough to not go down that road. You know, where the kids say "trick or treat!" and the person at the door says "Now here's one for you, one for you, and one for you!"? The assumption is the children with more candy went to more houses in order to build more capital. Of course, none of us know that, they very well might have beaten other children senseless and stolen it. Although I doubt it.
Assuming the children only 'earned' more candy by going to more houses, this model still begins with equal pay for equal work, a socialist mechanism. It certainly doesn't begin with outsourced, cheap (illegal) labor. This model certainly puts an equal value on competition, hell it virtually eliminates it. There's nothing stopping children from going to more houses and seeking more candy, but the candy divvied out will never be more or less than it is for any other child. Also, accepting the fact that these children wouldn't be able to make any candy currency at all if other people weren't willing to give it away is fairly damning to this model.
I don't know, it's hard to see children literally holding their hands out wanting "candy," then stealing said candy (in a commie/socialist society, you know the rules, they aren't sprung on you after the fact, which actually correlates well with our current tax system) without a prior explanation, not using any actual value system to redistribute, then asking the children what they think about it is a piss poor model for trying to actually educate someone about taxes.
Assuming the children only 'earned' more candy by going to more houses, this model still begins with equal pay for equal work, a socialist mechanism. It certainly doesn't begin with outsourced, cheap (illegal) labor. This model certainly puts an equal value on competition, hell it virtually eliminates it. There's nothing stopping children from going to more houses and seeking more candy, but the candy divvied out will never be more or less than it is for any other child. Also, accepting the fact that these children wouldn't be able to make any candy currency at all if other people weren't willing to give it away is fairly damning to this model.
I don't know, it's hard to see children literally holding their hands out wanting "candy," then stealing said candy (in a commie/socialist society, you know the rules, they aren't sprung on you after the fact, which actually correlates well with our current tax system) without a prior explanation, not using any actual value system to redistribute, then asking the children what they think about it is a piss poor model for trying to actually educate someone about taxes.
Funny as heck
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oklahoma City Spring Cleaning - Super Blackhawk, XDS 45, Flux Raider, Para 1911 and more
- Latest: Powerstroke60HH
