iPhone VS Socialism

"Look at all those poor people being miserable and poor while chatting on their iPhone!" This is an argument often used by libertarians, objectivists and other defenders of "real" capitalism. That argument is what's poor and should never be used again.

_{source: [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jTCBirELDU&t=1s)}

The iPhone is also brought up when debating socialists, with nonsensical arguments like: "You call yourself a socialist, but I see you use an iPhone, one of the prime examples of what's been given to us by capitalism!" One that's often been used against me personally, as an anti-capitalist and a socialist, is this one: "If you're all for spreading the wealth, why not donate everything or most of what you earn to some charity!?" All these arguments are nonsensical, they're all straw-mans, all arguing against a point that's never been made.

Let's tackle the iPhone first. The iPhone and almost every other popular technological advancement are NOT products of capitalism, and to believe they are is just ignorant. This is particularly true for the iPhone, which is an amalgamation of all sorts of publicly funded and collectively developed technologies. Almost nothing in an iPhone is new or revolutionary, or developed by the company itself. Just watch the above linked video to see how and why this is the reality. Generally speaking though, technological advancements are products of human curiosity, sharing ideas and collaboration. That's it, there's nothing mysterious or more to understand there, and these human qualities aren't exclusively linked to any socioeconomic configuration. What's true for capitalism though, is that it hinders greatly the "sharing" and "collaboration" parts of the equation.

Then there's that annoying and mindless argument that socialists should freely give away their money. Or that socialists aren't allowed to buy a nice home or an expensive car. This argument is a sneaky reversal of ideologies. Socialists don't advocate for, but expressly argue AGAINST charity or, to be more precise, the system that necessitates the existence of charity. Given the state of technological and social advancement in our age, socialists regard the ability to have a certain standard of living as a human right. And yes, that includes a smart-phone, especially now that we've built a society in which it's neigh impossible to thrive without one. Socialists do not agree with the absolutist right to every dollar you earn, when that right interferes with the right of everyone else to a decent living-standard, including free education, universal healthcare and so on. Not having these rights, makes large groups of people less free than those few who can afford to have these rights. And to be clear: it's the libertarians and objectivists who advocate for a society in which the poor will be taken care of through voluntary acts of charity, as they consider taxation to be theft and coercion. It's them who should freely give away their money to charity, as they advocate for the system that makes charity necessary.

I must admit that I love seeing these libertarian types being shown the error of their ways in a public debate. So linked below is a nice example for your enjoyment, between a socialist and a defender of Ayn Rand's objectivism.

Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy!

### Recent articles you might be interested in:

Latest article >>>>>>>>>>>	Belief Matters (repost)
Cannonball Fever	Not The Weather
Financial Freedom	Competition, AI And Money
Chile, Revolution And Disney	First Cause?

Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas.