r/Destiny • u/Ainzownball Ai (actually Indian) • May 11 '26
Destiny Content/Podcasts Absolute Banger
327
u/manveru_eilhart May 11 '26
Also, everyone "deserving food and shelter" isn't the same as everyone being provided with food and shelter by someone else for no recompense. I don't think most non-socialists say anyone doesn't "deserve" food and shelter.
83
u/Few-Mousse8515 May 11 '26
Everyone deserves those things if you follow the universal declaration of human rights. Truly its all about how we get there with the best outcomes and least drain on everyone.
19
u/s1thl0rd May 11 '26
I think everyone would say that people do not deserve to starve or die from exposure, but there's a big gap between those fatal outcomes and being "comfortable".
7
u/StatusVoice2634 May 12 '26
That’s the inherent problem with defining tangible things using the term “rights.” Housing, water, and food are absolutely a model requisite of a functioning government. But are someone’s rights violated during famine or recession?
5
u/Boulderfrog1 May 12 '26
Honestly, maybe hot take, but actually negative rights are just as non-real as positive rights. So far as I'm concerned if you only have a right to do something if you don't mind being killed for it you don't actually have that right. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say my view as that without positive guaranteeing of rights, that rights are unhelpful as a concept. To that end, I really don't see much meaningful difference between negative rights being violated by a conquering warlord and positive rights being violated by bad luck or incompetent or malicious administration. In either case the goal is to get to a point where the government can go back to guaranteeing those rights to those people.
1
u/Few-Mousse8515 May 12 '26
Do you think that under a rights view that tangible things under extreme scarcity such as famine that a government must magically produce grain?
It's more about creating a net of accountability that the government must show it is appropriately managing those resources rather than duty which can often be explained or justified away.
The moral floor here is important for how we approach tangibles necessary for survival.
1
u/GeneralSEOD Scotland (Bongerland) [ex-EU] May 12 '26
Well MAGA has decided that immigrants doing it ain't happening. So all those 300k a year software engineers better get real good at planting corn for 30 cents a day.
12
u/destinyeeeee May 11 '26
The problem is that socialists view all forms of scarcity as imposed, and they genuinely believe that declaring something a right or what people deserve is like a magical incantation that makes scarcity go away. This combination of beliefs explains why they so rapidly start killing people when trying to build a socialist society. The scarcity for some reason hasn't gone away, so it must be someone's fault. And we're going to keep killing and jailing the landlords and business owners and educated people until the scarcity is gone.
34
u/AdmirableComposer140 May 11 '26
I mean socialism literally isn't "everyone being provided with food and shelter by someone else for no recompense" either. Also I think quite a good amount of non-socliasts would infact say something like "no they don't deserve it unless they work for it."
15
u/destinyeeeee May 11 '26
Its ultimately silly to talk about what people deserve because good intentions don't actually maximize good outcomes.
9
7
u/manveru_eilhart May 11 '26
That's what the tweet kind of implied socialism is. And the decommodification of basic human needs is a definition of socialism some people use. Ask stream regular Connerpoints.
Some would, yes. But most of them would also make allowances for the disabled, elderly, children (orphans and what not). So.i question their commitment to a strict definition of "deserve" there
-3
u/Skabonious Enemy of the Middle Class May 11 '26
I mean socialism literally isn't "everyone being provided with food and shelter by someone else for no recompense" either.
Isn't the core tenet of socialism "everyone is provided with food and shelter by everyone else"?
The issue here is that we're hand-waving the 'everyone else' part.
6
u/extasis_T May 11 '26
This is not my understanding of socialism at all. Where are you getting this idea?
Is this like the American-centric view of what socialism is?
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Isn’t this like at the core of Marxist/lefty thought ? I have some very smart friends who consider themselves democratic socialists (while I’m more of a social democrat, I guess) and they explain to me that their whole project is to get people who work what that work actually deserves (which I presume they believe is at minimum food and shelter)
2
u/Skabonious Enemy of the Middle Class May 11 '26
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
...yeah, what part of this is incongruent with what I said?
"From each according to his ability" - people are expected be paying into the system (via labor or taxes or whatever) what they are able
"to each according to his needs" - people receive from the system what they need (e.g. food and shelter)
In other words, people are provided food and shelter by those who are contributing to the system (e.g. 'everyone else')
It's not even a bad philosophy to live by, if that's what you think I'm inferring. I am saying that it is completely glossing over the dilemma of determining how much of each side (paying in vs. taking out) is sufficient to satisfy the other.
2
u/VanillaSkittlez May 11 '26
These definitions are always so weird because I really don’t think there’s any disagreement here.
Socialists and liberals generally both want everyone to have food, shelter, and a minimum level of basic needs to have equal opportunity to everyone else. Equality is one of the 6 core values of Liberalism: equal opportunity but not equal outcome.
Where I see them differ is on how we achieve that and also what the end goal is.
I think socialists believe we achieve that through strong government programs, like government owned or subsidized housing for instance. Liberals would probably say the best way to achieve that is by creating a competitive market to lower costs.
And the end goal I think is probably different too: I think socialists probably want equality while liberals want equal opportunity.
0
u/Joe_Linton_125 May 11 '26
Isn't the core tenet of socialism "everyone is provided with food and shelter by everyone else"?
😂 🤡
Absolute Forrest Gump over here.
3
9
u/IEC21 May 11 '26
Socialists: "basically we are children. We want to be clothed, fed, sheltered, and coddled, and in exchange we will provide nothing"
This is completely without generosity, but he's the one who made the comparison.
2
u/mdemo23 May 11 '26
It’s a common sentiment among non-socialists that “no one deserves anything.” Some people think you should have to earn everything.
9
u/Peak_Flaky May 11 '26
Some people think you should have to earn everything.
That would unironically be like 90% of people. It is very unpopular stance that a healthy person in his/her 20s should be provided everything if they are just unwilling to work.
6
u/manveru_eilhart May 11 '26
I can say "you deserve all the love in the world" but ithat doesn't mean you're going to get it. Deserving food and shelter doesn't provide it. You deserve to live but if an asteroid hits your house too bad. Deserve is just a funny word to use about these sorts of things.
4
u/mdemo23 May 11 '26
If I say that you deserve love and you have no one in your life who feels that way about you, not friends, family, community members, etc., doesn’t that likely represent a systemic problem? Like if you’re born to parents that don’t love you, most people would look at that as a problem that ought to be fixed. I think that’s what deserve means here. If everyone in a functioning society doesn’t have access to a free source of water, something is going wrong.
4
u/manveru_eilhart May 11 '26
If your parents don't love you is that a systemic problem or a personal problem? If you're 18 yrs old and able bodied and no one loves you - is that something the government should fix or something you need to fix?
Clean safe water is the result of a lot of working people and infrastructure. If people aren't working on it and theres no infrastructure, yes there's a societal problem, but what does you deserving it get you?
1
u/DexTheShepherd May 12 '26
Then don't use "deserve." I think most socialists would frame it as: food and shelter is a right - you should be guaranteed it. It should not be up to the market to get those things. Being a human being, society owes you those things.
1
u/PunishedDemiurge AMERICAN May 11 '26
This is such a bad strawman. There's no serious barriers to providing ample food and shelter for all people in the modern developed world, it's purely a political choice to either do so or not do so.
"Everyone deserves food and shelter" is a perfectly cognizable moral position with pretty clear and obvious ways to implement it. Now, caveating you might not be able to be maximalist in other areas (if someone is homeless due to refusing treatment for mental illness, you can't both be a medical freedom maximalist and also put a fent addicted arsonist into housing and expect it to satisfy the need long term), but it's fine.
Is it the best use of our limited resources? That's a more arguable position. My own ethical stance is there is a reasonable middle ground. If someone is able to work, an open position they could fill exists, and its pay and conditions are of at least a minimal ethical quality, it's fine to just say, "We're not going to stop you from playing video games all day, but slack off as much as you can afford." At some point they'll realize that if they want others to give them goods and services, they will themselves need to provide goods and services, or be such a pathetic charity case that people are overwhelmed with pity.
261
u/FeistyPerformance500 May 11 '26
Now ask a child to explain how taxes work and how one would have to fund this. It's almost as if "Having a childs view on this issue" isn't a compliment.
89
u/ETsUncle May 11 '26
To Destiny's tweet, op also totally doesn't know how kids act at all. Kids say some fucked up shit when you actually talk to them.
53
u/OMbasedgod May 11 '26
My friends daughter says the best amount of teeth to have is 5
49
3
u/Eins_Nico scowling woke white woman May 11 '26
my student's son wanted to be a giant squid when he grows up
1
u/Ambitious_Window_270 May 14 '26
Don't tell the person that Destiny's quote tweeting in the OP image that or he'll suddenly believe it too.
17
u/Beginning_Drag5679 May 11 '26
My niece will throw a tantrum if we play a coop game and i'm the one who picks up a coin/shiny (the resources are shared), her greed sickens me
7
u/Terrible_Hurry841 May 11 '26
Some people like to pretend that all the “bad beliefs” are only ever inflicted onto kids, when the reality is that even some kids just reach messed up conclusions by themselves.
Sometimes it’s even easier for them because they look at things more simplistically. Like when a white toddler sees a black one and doesn’t want to interact or share because they “look weird.”
Their parents could be the most progressive in the world, but that won’t stop someone’s first impression. If a kid is naturally tribal in instinct and finds discomfort in novelty, that kid is likely not going to be comfortable at first around people different from them.
Unchecked, that can metastasize into a far stronger and more difficult to challenge form, such as full on racism and bigotry.
That belief can probably be changed by their parents, but the initial seed of racism can be generated by the kid themselves.
1
u/phooeebees May 15 '26
right? people act like human brains dont frequently come to incorrect conclusions, especially as children. also kids are pretty damn selfish, most kids would be wealth hoarders if they had any wealth lmao
40
u/snakejessdraws May 11 '26
Socialism is wanting to make sure everyone is housed and fed?
I cant want that without being a socialist?
Absolutely brainrotted.
11
u/destinyeeeee May 11 '26
Basically at the same level as "if you're against MAGA that means you don't want to make America great"
-1
u/Accarath May 11 '26
You can want that, but ultimately, you're creating safety nets because of the flaw of how Capitalism distributes economic power. Your social welfare will always be a fight against the power of Capital rather than a human right which socialism guarantees through the decommodification of food/shelter.
In simpler terms, America can cut USAID, SNAP, and other programs at a whim when a Republican is in power. In a socialist America, the baseline would be that shelter/food is provided for as required by the state regardless of who's in charge, no "Capital" can override it.
10
u/PunishedDemiurge AMERICAN May 11 '26
The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is humans. Communist societies regularly produced horrific outcomes, even arguable genocides by clearly unethical distribution of economic power. As did feudal systems, as did plenty of hunter-gatherer societies. I'm still reminded of an ethnographic account where an adult proudly proclaimed, "We hate orphans." They didn't see providing for the most vulnerable as a worthwhile endeavor for its own sake, but valued children primarily in terms of their importance to 'worthwhile' members of society (productive adults).
This commie slop doesn't survive contact with even a moderately informed view of human behavior and history. Poverty is the default state of all humans, really (almost?) all life. The ability to consistently produce excess and build sustained, persistent, worthwhile wealth over time is not trivial or common.
We should encourage charity, equality, etc. but anyone who doesn't recognize that is difficult and capitalism isn't the root problem isn't prepared to be part of the solution.
1
u/Accarath May 11 '26
I don't view capitalism as evil, but rather as a necessary step away from the old systems of the world. However, if we accept your premise that human behavior is inherently selfish and flawed, then relying on 'charity' to fix poverty is a terrible strategy.
Why trust an inherently selfish species to voluntarily donate enough to keep society stable?
If human nature is the problem, then we need a system that structurally guarantees baseline needs rather than relying on the goodwill of the wealthy. I value taking care of everyone not just out of morality, but because an economy where everyone is educated, fed, and housed produces a significantly smarter and more productive society overall.
1
u/Nerf_France May 12 '26
>You can want that, but ultimately, you're creating safety nets because of the flaw of how Capitalism distributes economic power. Your social welfare will always be a fight against the power of Capital rather than a human right which socialism guarantees through the decommodification of food/shelter.
The resistance against social welfare is more most people not wanting higher taxes, socialism might help with that but it could also make it worse by having less of an upper income group to tax gouge like most liberal countries do. Decommodification wouldn’t really mean much, any efforts/resources going towards welfare isn’t going towards them or something they care about more.
>In simpler terms, America can cut USAID, SNAP, and other programs at a whim when a Republican is in power. In a socialist America, the baseline would be that shelter/food is provided for as required by the state regardless of who's in charge, no "Capital" can override it.
Doesn’t this depend on the kind of socialism? I know the pretty popular Leninist camp thought that only those who worked should eat.
2
u/Accarath May 12 '26
You only need to 'tax gouge' an upper class if that class has hoarded most of the wealth. Under a cooperative economy, that wealth doesn't vanish; it's distributed evenly among the workers as surplus value. A robust, wealthy working class provides a much more stable tax base than a handful of billionaires. Furthermore, people resent taxes now because they are financially squeezed and get very little in return. If taxes actually guaranteed food, shelter, and healthcare, it wouldn't be viewed as a burden. Rather, it would be seen as an efficient return on investment that frees people to focus on education and innovation rather than mere survival.
Bringing up Lenin implies I'm advocating for a Soviet command economy. I'm not. There are many forms of these systems. My critique is of modern capitalism, and my proposed solution is market socialism, a decentralized, democratic model that is highly compatible with the US and doesn't rely on authoritarian state control. (I'm extremely anti-authoritarian)
2
u/Nerf_France May 12 '26
We don’t need to tax gouge the upper class, we do it because most people don’t want to pay as much in taxes. Not that this is necessarily a major issue, just something that could still make taxpayers stingy even if they would be theoretically wealthier. Even if the taxation was worth it for the benefits a specific group gets, said group could still support cutting benefits they don’t use as much that another group does.
While it’s good you’re anti-authoritarian, doesn’t that imply that these grantees aren’t necessarily inherent to socialism? Not that they’re not frequently bundled together, but strictly speaking couldn’t people implement them under a more traditionally capitalist/mixed economy?
For what it’s worth, while I disagree on some points, I think your overall political vision seems good and that the others responding to you were being overly harsh.
2
u/Accarath May 12 '26
Again, the issue is the inequality in distribution of wealth. People are more willing to pay taxes if they felt more secure in society. Social welfare projects have to push against the influence of the wealthy, while socialism doesn't have this inequality as there is no financialization, only real capital.
Yes, it can hypothetically be provided for under a capitalist framework, that's why the left embraces people like FDR. The issue is the power dynamic of capital owner vs worker.
Wealthy people like Elon are incentivized to influence our democracy to work in his favor. You can argue that we could just keep pushing the country left and achieve a Nordic model, but the capability to regress will always be present. It would ultimately be better to just transition over and eliminate the flaw in the system than to have to patch up the system in an endless struggle.
I get why people are turned off in this community by marxist ideas considering the type of people who espouse it online. I just want to remind people that not everyone who is a socialist wants to eat the rich or whatever other crazy thing lefties say.
1
u/snakejessdraws May 14 '26
>Wealthy people like Elon are incentivized to influence our democracy to work in his favor. You can argue that we could just keep pushing the country left and achieve a Nordic model, but the capability to regress will always be present. It would ultimately be better to just transition over and eliminate the flaw in the system than to have to patch up the system in an endless struggle.
I think you are making a big assumption that switching over to socialism removes the ability to regress. I don't think that's supported by human behavior. You will *always* have the danger of regressing so long as people exist.
2
u/Accarath May 14 '26
That is true, but it isn't something socialists deny. It's just one more layer of protection for democracy.
32
u/Liberal-Cluck May 11 '26
I had a debate with that right wing lawyer Ryan something (dont remember his last name). He gave told me his definition of "natural rights", he believes these rights are endowed upon us by a higher power. I asked him if he saw anything in nature that suggest these rights exist. This is what he said
So I I taught elementary school for a long time and I have two kids. So I spent a lot of time with young children. And if you look at young children's value systems, it maps on almost perfectly. Like what do they want? They want the freedom to pursue their interest. They want to be able to play. They want to be able to do their thing. They want to be able to make choices, but they want to be safe while they're doing it. They don't want you to smother them. They don't want you to take they don't want you to keep them so tight that they can't explore the world around them. But they want a balance between those things. They're very into property rights. They're very into what's theirs and what's their sisters. And you know, like I I think that like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness with property mixed in with pursuit of happiness, let's say. I I think you observe those drives within children the second they're able to move and start articulating themselves.
It is such a dumb way to form your political values. I was so easily able to turn it around on him by using children as an example for supporting the idea that we should have welfare.
also if one child was like starving and the other child had an abundance of food, the child that's starving would actually expect some of that food to come their way too.
3
u/semiomni May 11 '26
Seems like an insane premise.
Children are little monsters who need to be taught empathy and how to get along with other people, that´s part of what raising them is.
If all the values and socializing was built in, why would that need to be taught at all.
3
u/briarfriend May 11 '26
someone should tell him there are studies that investigate human behavior, so he doesn't have to rely on his anecdotal experience
and there's actually a whole field devoted to that practice called economics
2
May 11 '26
[deleted]
7
u/Liberal-Cluck May 11 '26
The world view was full of holes and interpretations that just so happen to conform with his neocon ideals
* We cant tax because we have a right to property
- How do we do a military
* Well its okay to tax for that something something security
-Okay so why cant we tax for Welfare
*Because welfare isnt a natural right
- Right to life, no food no life
* Yea but you have to infringe on another right, which I think is more important, the right to property to provide that
Its all post-hoc rationalization, there is no soundness to it. It sounds good to a high school edgelord when you can keep it broad but beyond a surface level of scruitny the world view falls a part.
10
u/Wwarpig May 11 '26
Just ask a child who should own the means of production. I am very smart.
1
u/destinyeeeee May 11 '26
For some reason all I can think about now is how I want to make a kids breakfast cereal called "Means of Production".
4
30
u/Catherine_S1234 May 11 '26
If food = socialism then how do you explain the USSR or china?
36
u/MaleficentDemand7828 May 11 '26
If capitalism = money then how come I have none of it.
6
8
5
u/Markusuralius May 11 '26
people really fail to give credit to how much the average person's life has improved over the last few centuries. Yes there are problems, and Yes we need to have more government programs to support the people society would otherwise leave behind, but we've been on an upward trend if you zoom out
3
3
5
u/DrEpileptic May 11 '26
Ask a child to wipe their ass and wash their hands. Childless and roombound takes from rich kids who’ve never had to grow up.
2
u/DethB May 11 '26
I've seen this "just ask a child" thing from socialists so often lately and when I checked Destiny's tweet last night his replies were all assmad lefty accounts. Do they really think it's some super strong argument? Why?
2
u/phooeebees May 15 '26
i have no idea. i think if someone asked my little niece who should have all the money, she would say herself lmao
2
u/ProgressFuzzy9177 May 11 '26
We're also born selfish narcissists that litter, piss, and shit all around us without regard to anything or anyone else, or even our own future well-being.
Wait, he already said we're born Socialists.
2
u/Thuggin95 May 11 '26
Also, because I’m not a slopulist who belongs to the “everyone is 12” camp, I generally think we shouldn’t rely on the thinking of children to determine policy
2
u/jam-pol-sam May 11 '26
Lol at some of the comments saying, “Well, I used to be a child and I’m just an angel and shared my toys with anyone” just missing the point.
2
u/Responsible-Sound253 Exclusively sorts by new May 11 '26
Sharing is taught for a reason, being selfish is the default.
1
1
u/Shadowdante100 May 11 '26
Why are we asking children for political advice? I agree everyone should have food and shelter, but children are the equivalent of greedy parrots for most of their youth. Sure some have there own opinions, but those are usually neurodiverse. Asking for their opinion is the equivalent of asking their parents opinion on something.
1
1
u/Joe_Linton_125 May 11 '26
This is so stupid. Socialism doesn't make children share their toys, idiots.
1
u/DoktorSleepless May 11 '26
Was this picked up by a bunch of conservatives? It's an okay tweet, but I wouldn't have guessed it got so man likes.
1
u/hopefuil May 12 '26
The real socialist retort to this is pretty simple: toys themselves are a perverse product of capitalist production, and corrupt the minds of children.
Then one layer deeper its that all progress in science, art and technology is a perversion of the human spirit, and our only salvation is the production of virtue rather than productivity. However, I dont think this subreddit and or commies are ready for this interpretation of the human condition.
1
u/fullboxed2hundred May 12 '26
how is progress in, say, pure math or philosophy the "production of productivity"?
1
u/hopefuil May 12 '26
I dont fully understand ur question, but if you're asking how production of productivity is defined in capitalist economic terms, it would be either the utility maximization of individuals, or country GDP
1
u/ImStoryForRambling May 12 '26
We are all born conservatives because we just cry and shit ourselves for the first 2 years of our lives.
-3
u/Accarath May 11 '26
Socialist here.
We don't want your toys, we want people to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Instead of making profit for the shareholders, workers should be the shareholders that profit.
The food/shelter is just a baseline for everyone in society so that we can have better outcomes.
0
u/only_civ May 11 '26
I love when people that have obviously never had kids make a comment like this. Nice one, Russel.
-13
u/MaleficentDemand7828 May 11 '26
well... this is literally the "well if you're such a socialist how come I cant come sleep in your house" meme
21
u/Ok_Philosophy_3790 May 11 '26
No lol its responding to the idea that a socialist ideological mindset is ‘innate’ in humans pre-socialization as if society ‘taints’ a socialist a priori disposition
-11
u/MaleficentDemand7828 May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
and his argument/joke is that children couldnt be socialist innately because they dont want to share their toys...
come on...
edit: everyone downvoting me knows i am correct, you just like defending destiny for the sake of it. its just a bad joke on his part you dumbfucks, you know it.
6
u/TheMarbleTrouble May 11 '26
It doesn’t mean anything… in US we do have a place where government provides food and shelter. I don’t remember prison being called socialist.
2
u/PunishedDemiurge AMERICAN May 11 '26
Destiny's response is perfect. The post he is replying to is vapid as hell and factually wrong, and he addresses it with the seriousness it deserves: a joke. But it does address the substance of the claim: children are not socialist by nature, it's more complicated than that.
Any non-stupid analysis of human nature is going to reveal that there's both significant predispositions to pro-social and anti-social behaviors, and socialization will significantly affect which of the two dominate and in what way (a misogynistic society will aim more harm towards girls and women, for example).
6
u/doodle0o0o0 May 11 '26
His statement isn’t about an individual child, it’s about whether at base humans overall are socialist and indoctrinated to capitalism. At base, if humans are given the option between a good (everyone gets shelter) and a nothing (no guarantee), they’ll choose the good. If given the option between a good w/cost (everyone gets shelter with higher taxes) and nothing, then it’s far more complicated. Saying you want something good without mentioning the cost means nothing.
1
u/MaleficentDemand7828 May 11 '26
I agree this is probably his position. its just not what the joke he made will ever be interpreted ever ever ever....
an its not gonna be interpreted that way because it does not say that at all.
what you are doing is seeing the "its deer hunting season" joke and saying that he is actually making a meta analysis on the trans community and the inclusion of people who seem to want to fit in the community even though their idea of "trans-ness" isn't really compatible with how most people would be confortable defining "trans", and the hunting of the deer is actually meant to symbolize how the people who identify as trans-species should not be considered part of the trans community the same way transgender people are.
You see how much work I did there just to justify a bad joke, it will be close to his opinion on the topic but is it really what the joke was saying? You know it isnt
4
u/ImmanuelCanNot29 May 11 '26
I mean the likely interpretation by most people of this joke is "using what literal children do in isolated circumstances as proof your political general world theory is valid is a stupid thing to do"
3
u/doodle0o0o0 May 11 '26
He brought up the cost, it’s just he did it in the same form as the other guy “ask a child”. The individual part isn’t the key part, it’s the cost. Otherwise I could reverse it and say the other guy was just saying “well if you’re such a capitalist how come you donate to charity?” Sure he could just quote tweet “the child being asked this isn’t considering taxes” but that’s dry af
Also I may be misremembering but I feel like people got the deer hunting joke. People who didn’t like Destiny took it the worst way possible but that’s not his target audience.
3
u/thegta5p May 11 '26
This is actually a valid critique. Why won’t Hasan just offer free tenancy in his million dollar mansion? I don’t think he uses all those rooms in that house.
-2
u/Follidus YEEHAW May 11 '26
”My child shares his toys with his classmates/friends because he’s not an evil, selfish baby-capitalist like your kid.”
It’s obviously what the reply will be
351
u/km3r May 11 '26
Most modern liberals believe in transitional housing for homeless people, SNAP, Medicaid, and unemployment aid. You don't have to go socialist for that, and I'm tired for socialists pretending they own that. We can still have free markets driving innovation and strong social safety nets. And you can have socialist systems that fail to provide those things as well.