If they're incapable of understanding the issue they're voting for then aren't they just causing more harm than good?

Can anyone name a country where socialism actually makes folks happy? Sweden doesn't count.

In my honest, and hopefully non offensive opinion socialism at it's very core make up is saying everyone is the same. And you should all be happy about it. Now all men are created equal, but ABSOLUTELY not gifted equally. So for example that is saying that it doesn't matter if you invented a laser that can scratch your ass from outer space you shouldn't be allowed make more then the simpleton flipping burgers at the Kyrstal's across the street. And if you do, you should share it.

I'm all about sharing, caring, and hugs not drugs and whatever, but for me to be forced into sharing what I have busted my ass to achieve even when all odds were against me and everyone laughed, is plain and simple robbery. And a government, should not rob it's people. Capitalism, gets such a bad rap, when in essence it's what 98% of people immigrate here for. The dollar and the chance for a better life. And the people who were born here(Usa) forget that, what we take for granted others do not.

So ask me again if I want the brilliant and talented doctor doing my tripple bypass (that I am now in need of because I ate myself to death with double quater pounders) to be paid the same as the slacker barely passed med school by the skin of his teeth. No I don't. Because if you are good at something never do it for free and it's that's doctors right to charge what he sees fit for his services. That is a buyer/seller relationship on it's base level. And I most certainly want to get what I pay for, not what the government see's fit to pay my brilliant and talented surgeon.

it sounds like you're talking about communism. i don't really think wages need to be equal. but i think that we should invest in certain things as a society, as i believe these things will actually make us a better and more prosperous society. things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, scientific research, etc. which means taxing people. and i think the tax rates should go up the more you make. which is in a way a redistribution of wealth. but the data shows that when we don't redistribute wealth we head in the direction of a two tiered system, with the super rich on one side and everyone else on the other. and this has its own set of problems which concern me more than some vague principle that everyone should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get to work.

You're not talking about communism or socialism. Communism is by definition a stateless society, so wages wouldn't be set by the government, because there would be no government.

Because I don't think it would be that complicated a process, and because I've just never done it - I didn't say that was a good thing, but it's true.
With - I'm pretty moderate.
Because when you start saying certain people can't vote, you're opening the door to their oppression because they can't protect themselves and because you've already told everyone they're a lower class of person. Loss of democracy leads to erosion of civil rights (and it is itself erosion of civil rights, but it leads to the loss of rights other than to vote). Democracy can also be a powerful tool for egalitarianism.
It's a problem, but it should be solved by more education. Barring people from voting is functionally hard - where do you draw the line? If it's by some test, how do you write the test in a way that's fair to everyone? - and whatever harms there are from uneducated people voting are far outweighed by loss of democracy.

you don't think restructuring the economic and political infrastructure would be a complicated process?

you might have misunderstood me (i was pretty vague). i'm not saying why not let some people vote and not others. i'm saying why do people need to have a say in their government in general? which your next section touches on a bit more..

so basically democracy is a safe-guard against tyranny. that is basically how i have always thought about it as well. but this assumes that any non-democratic government will by definition act in a tyrannical way.

what if there were a state that had the goals which were determined with the state's population's best interests in mind but wasn't obliged to incessantly campaign for public approval in their attempts to achieve those goals? do you think democracy might slow us down?

in theory... but not in the real world.

I mean I've heard about some businesses who are becoming co-ops on their own. It would be a nasty political fight, but you could do it gradually - start with incentives, like the government will cover some percentage of health-care costs if businesses do certain things for democracy, then mandate that companies have some employees on their board, and so on.
Without democracy, there's no way to hold them accountable. You can tell me that in the hypothetical they're totally benevolent and great people, but that isn't very useful because the reason why we need democracy is we can't just trust that our leaders have our best interests in mind.
I mean there's never been communism in the real world, and there probably won't be in the foreseeable future on any decent-sized scale (you could count kibbutzes or something, I guess).

don't you think there is a difference between having a couple co-op's emerge from the market and having a full fledged socialist economy?

if incentives will work then why is it so unlikely that you will see a socialist govt in your lifetime?

so you're willing to entertain hypothetical versions of socialism but not hypothetical versions of totalitarianism?

M-L-M Mayhem!: Please Stop Talking About "True Communism"

Because the issue is that nobody in a position of power would vote for this kind of thing, not that it couldn't be implemented.
They're very different things. You're asking me to assume that there are people in power who are flawless and will always look out for the best interests of everyone, while I'm asking you to assume that Congress passes and the President signs a series of legislation that transitions us to a co-op based economy.
I'm not arguing that "the true beauty of communism has never been realized". I'm not making an ideological argument. Whether or not communism is a good thing, it hasn't happened.

Lol. This isn't socialism at all. Also, why does Sweden not count? What about the other Nordic countries? Seriously man, socialism isn't about sharing everything one owns or making everybody's wages equal like a real life Imagine by John Lennon. Modern socialism is mostly concerned with equal rights for all people regardless of ecomic status. Look at Sweden, Norway, Finland, and others for good examples.

On the other hand, you have countries which claim to be socialistic but in fact cling to outdated ideas and aren't much better than dictatorships. It's a bit like North Korea being a "democracy".