Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

Communism and Socialism do not work because their basic premise invloves moral inequality. You appear to agree that everyone should be treated equally, yet you advocate taking from one person and giving it to another, and claiming it is your right. This means that you are actually saying that those who are poor are morally more important than those who are not poor.

Wouldn't advocating that the wealthy retain a disproportionately large amount of capital relative to their actual productive output mean that we believe the wealthy are morally more important than those who are not wealthy?

Well, I suppose there's a moral difference between allowing "retaining" and "taking away" of one's posessions.

[Muz]

Communism and Socialism do not work because their basic premise invloves moral inequality. You appear to agree that everyone should be treated equally, yet you advocate taking from one person and giving it to another, and claiming it is your right. This means that you are actually saying that those who are poor are morally more important than those who are not poor.

It works on the same premise as banking. You give equally to everyone in terms of education and health, investing in their futures. Some have an awesome future, some don't. Those who don't work low wage jobs, those who are awesome will have high paying jobs. You then tax the high paying one 50% of his income and the poor one 0% of his.

Does it sound fair? Not directly. Then you calculate how much money the rich person saved by having a free education and not paying off student loans (+ interest). He's also less likely to be accosted by muggers and homeless people because the poor ones get enough money to live.

People are not treated equally. Even after taxes, the awesome guy will make much more money, own a bigger house, a nicer car, nice watches, gadgets, a home theater, travel around the world, get more vacation time and shorter working hours, etc, etc. The poor guy will still have a comfortable house, enough food to eat, enough money for a few cigarettes and beers (or a PS2), and manages to get around with public transport. But the difference between capitalism and socialism is that the poor guy's kids will still have a good chance at becoming an awesome guy.

[Majestic7]

Communism and Socialism do not work because their basic premise invloves moral inequality. You appear to agree that everyone should be treated equally, yet you advocate taking from one person and giving it to another, and claiming it is your right. This means that you are actually saying that those who are poor are morally more important than those who are not poor.

That is your definition and you choose to build it in away which paints certain taint into the whole picture. The question is more about the basic function of the society - is it supposed to bring as much wellbeing to as many people as possible and pay fairly to people for their worth or be winner takes all? Especially when resources tend to accumulate - having resources makes people get more resources. Socialism is a system to equalise this basic twist in the system by providing more opportunities for the poor. Besides, as I stated in my post before, it isn't the poor who benefit the most from socialism, but middle class. They get back what they give with interest. Thus your whole premise about those who are not poor being forced to give to those who are poor is flawed. 

edit - Oh and even if we talk about communistic dogma, you are wrong again. Communist dogma talks about "to each according to their means and needs", where the profit of a factory, for example, would be shared among the workers of the factory. I definitely don't believe in communism, it is naive in the same way as libertarianism is, but I hate it when people throw the term around so loosely.

[Majestic7]

People are not treated equally. Even after taxes, the awesome guy will make much more money, own a bigger house, a nicer car, nice watches, gadgets, a home theater, travel around the world, get more vacation time and shorter working hours, etc, etc. The poor guy will still have a comfortable house, enough food to eat, enough money for a few cigarettes and beers (or a PS2), and manages to get around with public transport. But the difference between capitalism and socialism is that the poor guy's kids will still have a good chance at becoming an awesome guy.

..aaand there's a way to prove this is happening too. Social mobility index is much higher in countries with social democratic basis in the system than it is in, say, United States. This basically means the chances of a poor person becoming a rich person. the American Dream about going from the ghetto to a penthouse is more of a fantasy, it doesn't really happen. If you look at the rich and the powerful today, most of them inherited the money and the position.

[Eugenitor]

Communism and Socialism do not work because their basic premise invloves moral inequality. You appear to agree that everyone should be treated equally, yet you advocate taking from one person and giving it to another, and claiming it is your right. This means that you are actually saying that those who are poor are morally more important than those who are not poor.

Absolutely!! How dare a classroom full of three-year-old orphans eat healthy meals? It's my goddamn money, and I'll spend it on new trim for my yacht if I fucking want!

[Il Palazzo]

Absolutely!! How dare a classroom full of three-year-old orphans eat healthy meals? It's my goddamn money, and I'll spend it on new trim for my yacht if I fucking want!

It's my goddamn money, and want to spend it on buying healthy meals for this particular orphaned children!
What do you mean you'll take my money and spend it to help those children? How do I know you're not nicking some under the table, or that you won't support the kids in your neighbourhood?

[Eugenitor]

Okay yeah that analogy kinda dies when you remember that charity is tax-deductible in the US and probably a lot of other countries. If more rich people donated enough of their cash to fixing up social problems we wouldn't have the cities in such disrepair and incredibly poor Native Americans wouldn't have a "Don't get sick after June" policy (because that's when the money runs out)

Not that I care about the Sioux nation or even American cities. I slept through 9/11 even with parents trying to keep me awake to watch people take concrete high dives. To me your lives are worth as much as a little blue smiley representing a dwarf (and for the pro-plutocrats, a purple smiley and I don't mean a surgeon). But up here on my high horse I get to enjoy the advantage of intellectual honesty; I don't need to pretend that my unabated greed will be of benefit to any of you.

But, like small children, so many of you are imitating your kleptocrats who tell you with a straight face that greed is good while they fly around in no-TSA private jets and outsource your jobs to an eight-year-old chained to a table. (What can I say, it's important to get kids involved in soccer!)

Defending skinflint miser-dom (and just plain misery) as an ethical imperative- woo! Sure come far from the days of Dickens, haven't we?

Please, amuse me more with your moral strafing. Dance, vermin!

[Nikov]

If you look at the rich and the powerful today, most of them inherited the money and the position.

This is incredibly false, at least when speaking about America.

I slept through 9/11 even with parents trying to keep me awake to watch people take concrete high dives. To me your lives are worth as much as a little blue smiley representing a dwarf (and for the pro-plutocrats, a purple smiley and I don't mean a surgeon).

Do you have a sense of shame?

[Il Palazzo]

@Eugenitor: So, you don't care about people, and you're pissed off that some of us might not care about people?

[Criptfeind]

That was more trolling then I have see you even do, congrats Eugenitor.

[Nikov]

@Eugenitor: So, you don't care about people, and you're pissed off that some of us might not care about people?

No, we just don't care about people the same way he does. And that pisses him off, being our moral superior and all.

I've always been loathe to hit the report button. Just saying.

[Eugenitor]

@Eugenitor: So, you don't care about people, and you're pissed off that some of us might not care about people?

I just think that when you're promoting policies that are guaranteed to cause misery and despair, you ought to just come right out and say it.

I mean, it hasn't been represented on this board (I don't think), but there's actually people in the US who want to abolish the minimum wage. The minimum wage! An amount of money that barely- if that- pays the bills for one person, an amount of money that even teenagers can't save up for college on. Any idiot knows that anyone working below *that* tiny amount of money is utterly screwed.

And yet, the proponents of this hideous proposition feel compelled to make mouth noises about how it will be good for the economy and of benefit to the nation as a whole.

Screw that! Real evil overlords don't do half-measures. If you're going to treat your fellow humans with contempt and disrespect for their welfare, have the nutsack to do it right: with two extended middle fingers, a grin, and an echoing cackle!

[Nikov]

I want to abolish the minimum wage. Any economist will tell you it simply legislates the bottom percentiles of your labor force into unemployability.

But as you go to great lengths to explain, the only reason why I or anyone would disagree with you, Eugenitor, is because we are evil greedy capitalist kleptocrats or stupid people brainwashed by Fox News. And we are Legion.

Great to see you're one for an honest debate.

[Jackrabbit]

I would assume that the reason people who want to abolish the minimum wage don't do so cackling evilly is because they believe they're doing the right thing and don't agree with your assessment, Eugenitor.

[fqllve]

It also tends to damage small businesses, who are struggling to get by already.