No no, everyone has to work together like a well-oiled machine, helping each other when there’s mutual benefit. But that doesn’t work in real life. There’s always going to be some people that need help even if no tangible benefit can be obtained through helping them. Not that they don’t believe in charity, but they that they think individual charity can be trusted to help everyone that needs it.

Like all pure political philosophies, it sounds good on paper but in application it looks like silly idealism. If everyone could be wealthy that would be lovely. If trickle-down wealth really worked, that would be lovely. If pure communism could be accomplished with everyone continuing to do their fair share of work instead of slacking off because they’ll receive the same benefits regardless, that would be lovely. Human nature requires a “somewhere in the middle” approach, though.

I should add that this and communism are kind of opposite. They both believe in personal freedoms, but they were born of different social clbumes. The spoiled upper clbum thinks everyone could maybe be the spoiled upper clbum, while the poor think everyone should work and receive the same lifestyle for that work. Neither clbum acknowledges that the other isn’t going to comply.