Nope, Soviet Union absolutely send people to work and allowed no one to sit idle... and guess what, it had central control instead of social welfare.

Are you a ludist??? Because the fear of automation is some century old.

Do you know how banks make money? They're not going to loan money to someone if they don't think they'll get any of that money back. So, usually that person has to have a certain level of income or savings, or something in that manner, in order to even get a loan large enough to start up a business. Most people are not going to be able to pay 10k USD back in one month. Also, immigration is now based on prospects, so generally only people that are well-off in the first place are able to immigrate to the US.

Well humans are selfish creatures and won't work just from the goodness from their hart or with almost no reward that's why full blown socialism will never work so that's why we have to settle for the next best option Social democracy.

So you can't answer a simple question so you resort to an ad hominem. You somehow also forgot that you quoted my posts where I was critical of welfare and the Nordic countries being "socialist".

Lol this is a joke, go bug someone else.

You'll still be rewarded for your work, I don't see why you wouldn't be. I think sc94597 touched on this in his replies to you.

Wow the initial post is actually vaguely spot on.

Automation will kill labour not jobs. There will be more jobs than ever. See the past few thousand years for examples of technology killing labour but increasing the number of jobs available.

Yes, the history of capitalism and private property is riddled with violence, and even today the state is fundamentally a violent institution. Politics is merely the means by which violence is distributed, and in our current world violence is distributed by the state. 

Consider the very outset of capitalism, during the transition from feudal estates, to absolutism, to liberal democracy. 

In Europe, you had serfs and non-serf peasants all working on a lord's land, paying a share of their produce. Now how did this lord gain property in the land? He was rewarded it by his liege-lord, and his lord by his lord --- so on and so forth until you get to the king. All property under late feudalism was assumed to be owned and distributed by the sovereign. How did the sovereign come to 'own' this land? God gave it to him, the clergy used all sorts of justification for that particular hierarchy in society. 

Over many years there was conflict between lords and sovereigns as they struggled for power. The sovereigns wanted to end feudalism and centralize power under their control, diminishing the power of the lords. In some countries they succeeded more than others. In countries like Britain serfdom was abolished once and for all in the 16th century. In countries like Russia, feudalism still existed until the revolution in the 20th century. How feudal the society was tended to predict how agrarian it was. Under feudal societies the more land you had the more wealth and power you had as well. 

So you have this conflict between the sovereigns and lords, you had peasant rebellions here and there which both sides used to consolidate power, and then you had a very clever and revolutionary middle-class of merchants and bankers. This middle-class is what Marx called the bourgeoisie, which literally means "town-dweller." 

As the sovereigns weakened the bonds of feudalism, the bourgeoisie took advantage of this. The monarchs needed to gain revenue independent of that gained from the land-rents the lords imposed. So over time the concept of directly taxing various things came about. In the beginning it was excise taxes, but over time taxation became more expansive. This created an incentive for the sovereigns to allow the expansion of trade and market-society via mercantilism, whereas before these things were generally despised by both the upper and lower classes. This also empowered the bourgeoisie and made them wealthier and more powerful. 

During this process the feudal estates were being enclosed by the lords and bourgeoisie in order to stay relevant financially. It became more efficient (for the lords) to use the land for activities which required less human labor. What did enclosure look like? Entire villages were destroyed, people were violently restricted from accessing the common fields that their ancestors worked for centuries, they were dispossessed from the natural livelihood of the Earth that essentially belonged to all of them collectively because it was labored by all of them individually and/or collectively. So on and so forth.  With these enclosures you had a large number of vagrants wandering about European countries with no skills or ability to work. How were these vagrants treated? Well vagrancy was made illegal in many countries and often these people were the targets of violence by the sovereigns, lords, other peasants, etc. Why? All because of a competition in who can have the most power and control, and you only achieved the most power and control through violence. 

Whereas before you had a mostly agrarian population who collectively tilled the land (albeit paying a land-rent or tax) now you had a population increasingly being dispossessed off the land they depended on for living. And land, usually correlated with wealth. Anyway, over a process of centuries and after various revolutions which destroyed absolutism you see a slow devolution of political power from the clergy/aristocracy to the middle-class bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie became the richest and most influential of classes, challenging the authority of the nobles, sovereigns and clergymen. You also had a new population of urban-dwellers whom formally lived an agrarian life tilling land which they had free access to, to a more restricted existence where they couldn't access that land. This new working class was the developing proletariat. Their position was induced by prior violence on the part of many different sections of society. 

Under liberal democracy you still have the following protections supported by violence though: the protection of property rights in things which one does not use or labor -- the state will enforce evictions by absentee landlords, the violence of eminent domain -- the state will kick people (even poor people) off their land if they deem a "public service" which usually implies rewarding access to a private party (such as a railroad or today -- Walmart), the subsidization of property protection via taxes -- which are based on the threat of violence, the reduction of competition through state mandates and regulations -- particularly in the lending, creation, and circulation of money, the regulation of international and infra-national trade and movement of labor, historically the prohibition of workers rights to collectively bargain, the direct subsidization of large banks and employers (what we call bailouts), the directed development of urban rather than rural areas through tax-funds which centralize wealth into urban areas through artificial economies of scales, so on and so forth. 

The effect of this all of these and many other policies is to privilege the owners of capital and reduce the bargaining power of laborers, both individually and collectively. These policies, in effect, restrict natural property and financial resources to a select few, dis-empowering the rest of the population. And because they are policies enacted by the state -- an institution which declares a monopoly on the legitimation of all violence, they are fundamentally based on violence.  

What do you mean by vaguely? I'm just curious.

This last statement I find particularly questionable, because it blames the enforcement mechanism rather than the rule itself. If you wish to blame the system of government and its methods of land distribution (and I'll fully support you when it comes to eminent domain), then that's all well and good, but blaming violence for that seems misguided. State violence is, at some level, the enforcement mechanism for every law in every country that I can ever think of. Murder someone? Arrested and put in jail. Rob a store? Arrested and put in jail. And even for smaller offenses that don't warrant an arrest at first, if you continue to resist and trying to avoid the state implemented penalties, you will, eventually, be arrested and forced into prison against your will. Saying that violence is the reason why there hasn't been a more fair system of land ownership is like saying that violence is ultimately the reason why healthcare is a massive problem in the US. Sure, maybe if the state didn't have a monopoly on violence, the current form of government could have been overthrown and a more equitable system of healthcare put in place, but that's less an explanation of why this problem exists in the first place and more why the problem hasn't been solved yet.

On top of that, in regards to high rent prices, the explanation of violence seems a little disingenuous, or at the very least, incomplete, given the myriad of other factors that are involved in rent prices, which can all be boiled down to supply and demand. Obviously what is "expensive" and what is "cheap" is highly subjective, but what isn't is the discrepancy of rent prices between different areas or even states. For instance, South Africa has the cheapest rent in the world; the average apartment is 87.5% cheaper than the average apartment in New York City. Does that mean that South Africa somehow has less of a monopoly on violence, or that perhaps there are fewer instances of state violence? Certainly not. Rather, rental prices are heavily based in supply and demand; i.e. how popular the place is to live and how much space there is to live. The first factor certainly isn't controlled by the state or what we'll call the "elites," and while the second could be in theory, in practice it rarely plays out that way.