Are you asking what the whole topic of the thread is? People trying to radically force everyone to be equal.
> I don't know but I'm not sure we should keep trying as millions of people end up dead every time someone gives it another whirl.
What is this sentence referring to if not trying to associate future attempts at egalitarianism with Stalinism?
Why are you asking me to explain things I didn't say?
> What is this sentence referring
It's referring to people trying to forcibly make everyone more-or-less equal.
You're asking me why I'm projecting Stalinism... but you brought up Stalinism, not me. If you think that matches Stalinism then that's something you've introduced to the conversation, not me. People opposed to Stalinism like Trotskyists were also in favour of dictatorship and violently forced equality. Stalin didn't have a monopoly on demonstrably shit ideas for oppressively and violently reshaping society.
If you're going to deny these things happened then I think you're crazy and I'm out the conversation.
Deny? I'm not denying anything, I'm saying that you're projecting those things onto people with fundamentally different ideas, a.k.a democratic ideas, not totalitarian.
It's played out like this again and again and again.
Maybe it's just not such a hot idea?
Who are these people that are not arguing for implementing their ideas democraticly?
What undemocratic ideas are they proposing?
What example do you have of something that started democratic but "then before you know it" ended up with oppression and totalitarianism?
Then stop trying if you find it too hard to contribute a serious comment!
You're asking me what I'm alluding to and what I'm projecting and asking me to explain things I haven't said and other backwards and inside-out things, rather than responding to the actual arguments I'm making myself. Seems like you're bringing some kind of baggage to the discussion that I'm not party to.
It's clear now that you're not going substantiate anything since it would just display your ignorance.
The original question was 'what’s wrong with trying to force everyone to be financially more or less equal'. What’s wrong with it is every time someone tries this it ends up hell on earth.
That’s it. That’s the whole point. No implications, no allusions.
If that's not good enough for you, sorry nothing I can do about that. Maybe move on?
> What’s wrong with it is every time someone tries this it ends up hell on earth.
No surprise that you latch on to tone policing either. I rest my case.
Please check the site guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.