Communism and Socialism

[Duke]

See there we go,... I see about as much compassion in that post as we do from the credit people.

F everyone as long as YOU are ahead,... thats the American dream eh?

First, let me say, good to see you back, RER.

But I have to disagree with your attitude. You and your girlfriend have my sympathy for being in that situation. It happens to nearly everybody at some point or another, to varying degrees. I haven't carried a balance on my credit card in 15 years or more, after beating it down to zero. But I weigh 250 lbs. We all have our weaknesses.

That doesn't make the credit card company evil, though. They didn't put your girlfriend in this situation, any more than the maker of your car is to blame for a speeding ticket or a distiller is to blame for a drunk. They sell a service. Appropriate use of that service is up to the user, as it should be.

Again, I symapthize, having been there myself at age 24-25. But even then I didn't think that the credit card company was just being mean because they wouldn't pretend I hadn't gotten myself into that situation.

 

[Arwin]

Arwin you really dont understand the American Political system at all. The people who pay taxes do so for the most part grudgingly and vote that way.

So far, no surprises.

Having two partys in our country is no where near the detriment you make it seem. Our politice move from the local grass roots level all the way up to the national level. Every town , villiage or city is its own mini democracy.

I'll have to admit I'm not aware of how it works at the local level, and I didn't take that into the discussion, not because I thought it was irrelevant, but because I just didn't think about it. Still, Bush is able to promise tax cuts, and run a huge national deficit. So I think it wouldn't matter all that much because its on that level we are having this dicussion. Although then again, I'm also not fully aware how much power states have to raise their own taxes and create their own social systems, require insurance, and so on.

The individual states operate almost like 50 different countries , with thier own excecutive and legislative branch and constitutions.

This I was aware of, for instance witnessing the difference between how California and Texas are being run (though now with Arnie in power, who knows the two will move a tad closer ).

even inside the two major party's ( there is no legal limit to the amount of party's ) you have the full range of political types ( Al Sharpton was a speaker at the Democratic nat. convention) our partys are run like coalition governments you have to come to aggreement with all sides to present a platform to prevent them from running as an independent and diluting your vote

So its not like you are limiting peoples choices at all, at times they have too many to choose from and they split off into third party candidates. The greatest argument for the American system of government is America itself. You do not become the only superpower in the world both military and economic by having a poor political system.

Hmm. I wouldn't be too sure about that. The U.S.S.R. was a world power too for quite a while, remember? And they really suffered quite a bit more in WW2 than most so they had to come a longer way than the U.S., yet were at times pretty close to equal. And what to think about China? How long before we'll have to consider them a full blown world power? Only 25% of the Chinese need to reach the level of welfare of U.S. residents and the country will have outgrown the U.S. as a potential power, because it's internal market alone is 4 times bigger.

And its really important to remember that are government is for the people and run by the people . We vote what we feel. And we vote our pockets. A socialist will most likely never get elected no matter how much money he spends to do so. Of course some might think that any Democrat is by nature a socialist, but I am talking about the European model democratic / Socialist. In some circles in Europe our democrats are considered right wingers.

Yes, too many Europeans the U.S. democrats are probably more right wing than our own 'Republicans". Similarly, I'm sure that in some U.S. states socialists are considered communists.

I think it's an interesting discussion, and a difficult one. I do, however, sometimes feel that U.S. citizens have more trouble having such a discussion because they have no or little experience with a party/coalition system. Of course the reverse is also true, but people in a small country as mine is tend logically to read more about foreign countries than vice versa.

Perhaps you can help me by explaining how someone like Nader or Perot fares. Say they get 22% of the U.S. votes. What power does this give them?

 

[Danoff]

I know that you respect me and jp, neon, and I respect that too, but my perception is that there are often many like wellyrn on your side of the debate whom you support and agree with

Who exactly are you referring to?

 

[Danoff]

I have seen no response to my fundamental question about the morality of socialism and communism.

Is it fair?

Is it fair to give the same amount of money or services to those who produce as the amount given to those who do not?

Is it fair to take some of the products generated by those earn them and give them to those who do not?

 

[Arwin]

I have seen no response to my fundamental question about the morality of socialism and communism.

Is it fair?

Is it fair to give the same amount of money or services to those who produce as the amount given to those who do not?

Is it fair to take some of the products generated by those earn them and give them to those who do not?

It depends slightly on the situation. If we're talking about identical people with identical opportunities, then no. Otherwise, the situation becomes slightly less black and white.

Once again, depends on the situation. In most real life situations, we're not talking about a lottery or leeching here, but welfare. The money is given to people, believe it or not, for a good reason. Is it fair to recognise that as a society we work and live together and are responsible both for ourselves and each other? I think so. Going from there, some countries have kinder people than others and some countries have fairer means of distribution than others.

While we're on this subject, just yesterday I read in the newspaper that on average the amount of tax imposed by countries in the West has been more or less stable over the last 30 years. The only two countries that managed to reduce their tax rate were the U.S. (now at about 25%) and the Netherlands (now at about 38%).

So, what would you like to discuss? Whether the 12% difference is fair? Or whether the way these percentages are spent in the respective countries is fair? Or whether these numbers should be reduced to zero, or instead raised? Whether it is wise to care for your neighbour or just let him fend for himself? Whether you should have the freedom to do as you please, help him or not? You may want to pick one of these subtopics, the current question you've put to us may just require volumes to answer.

 

[Danoff]

The money is given to people, believe it or not, for a good reason.

This is beside the point because the people who give the money are not the people who earned it. It doesn't matter what their reason is - I'm asking whether it was stolen and distributed in a fair manner.

Is it fair to recognise that as a society we work and live together and are responsible both for ourselves and each other? I think so.

Is it fair to recognise... I don't know how to answer that. Fairness in terms of recognition becomes almost meaningless to me.

Are we responsible for both ourselves and society? No.

If someone steals something do I go to jail for his actions? No. If someone saves a life do I receive a medal? No. If someone has children is it my responsibility to buy them clothes? No. If someone gambles away their fortune is it my responsibility to stop them? No.

So, what would you like to discuss? Whether the 12% difference is fair? Or whether the way these percentages are spent in the respective countries is fair? Or whether these numbers should be reduced to zero, or instead raised? Whether it is wise to care for your neighbour or just let him fend for himself? Whether you should have the freedom to do as you please, help him or not? You may want to pick one of these subtopics, the current question you've put to us may just require volumes to answer.

The question is none of those. There is no tax rate in pure communism - in pure socialism it is almost meaningless. The question is simply whether it is fair to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor under any circumstances.


Let me pose a hypothetical scenario.

A child of rich parents grows up going to the best private schools money can buy. He makes fairly poor grades and flunks out of college. He inherits a large some of money that he then uses to finance a friends business in return for a portion of the company (and therefor profits). The friend works hard and does very well. The rich kid (now an adult) is making a pile of money.


A poor kid grows up going to some of the worst public schools our tax dollars purchase. He works hard and makes excellent grades but doesn't go to college because he needs to take a job to support a sick parent. He falls in love and has kids but now - since he didn't go to college - cannot afford to support the children and parents. He needs help.

Is it fair to take money from the rich person and give it to the poor person?


Here's a different scenario.

A poor kid, through hard work and determination becomes extremely wealthy.

A rich kid pisses away his parent's fortune and is extremely poor and needs help.

Is it fair to take from the rich person and give to the poor here?


Is it fair independent of the scenario?
(Let's assume for the time being that people who have broken the law are all in jail)

 

[Arwin]

This is beside the point because the people who give the money are not the people who earned it.

That's up for debate. That's like saying the people who pay for roads are not the ones who drive on it.

It doesn't matter what their reason is - I'm asking whether it was stolen and distributed in a fair manner.

It is not stolen. It also cannot be, otherwise this subject is rejected by your own conditions of this discussion: "(Let's assume for the time being that people who have broken the law are all in jail)"

Is it fair to recognise... I don't know how to answer that. Fairness in terms of recognition becomes almost meaningless to me.

Ok, that's hard to rephrase. Let's illustrate - research has shown that both those who believe in socialists and those who believe in that everyone should take care of himself do so for the same reason: they think that they themselves will be better off under this scenario. In other words, equally selfish people choose a different path to get what they think they want. The socialists feel that hard work is good, but fate is unfair and if we support each other we can become more free from the wheel of fortune. The 'swedish model' ventures to create a mix that achieves this in such a way that you're still stimulated to work to your best ability, but receive support when the wheel has left you temporarily unable. There are no out of jail free cards here, but there are reintegration programs.

Are we responsible for both ourselves and society? No.

If not, then you've just negated society. Are you an anarchist? What's the point of something like GTPlanet? Why does that work?

If someone steals something do I go to jail for his actions? No. If someone saves a life do I receive a medal? No. If someone has children is it my responsibility to buy them clothes? No. If someone gambles away their fortune is it my responsibility to stop them? No.

If someone is hurt by a car, thrown into a ditch, is it your responsibility to help him, if even by calling an ambulance? No. If someone's house burnt down with all his money and belongings and his family, and he's standing there with half a burnt leg and no clothes? No. If you save someone's life, will he be more likely to save someone else's life in the future? No. If a child ends up on your doorstep because he's lost his parents and now no longer has food, is it your responsibility to feed him? No.

If all of society could, by working together, help people like the above by building hospitals, fire brigades, first aid posts and orphanages, for a fraction of our wages because together it's a lot cheaper and efficient to pull off, is that our responsibility? No.

But would we? Yes.

The question is simply whether it is fair to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor under any circumstances.

It's all about the circumstances.

I'll get back to you on the scenarios, I have a date to go to. Funny thing, that "I don't want what I haven't earned." Sounds a lot like people who'd want that wouldn't be fans of fate.

 

[Danoff]

That's up for debate. That's like saying the people who pay for roads are not the ones who drive on it.

Some services cannot be provided well by private enterprise. In these instances it is only permissible for the government to get involved if the overhead is quite low and the outcome is of very high benefit.

It is not stolen. It also cannot be, otherwise this subject is rejected by your own conditions of this discussion: "(Let's assume for the time being that people who have broken the law are all in jail)"

The law does not state that the tax collectors go to jail if they collect taxes. But I prefer the word stolen because it is closer to the truth than anything else I can come up with. Paying taxes would optimally be done by choice in the form of a sales tax. That’s not really feasible – though it certainly doesn’t have to be the way things are now.

Ok, that's hard to rephrase. Let's illustrate - research has shown that both those who believe in socialists and those who believe in that everyone should take care of himself do so for the same reason: they think that they themselves will be better off under this scenario. In other words, equally selfish people choose a different path to get what they think they want.

Capitalists want the world to be free. A place where they can control their lives. Socialists want the world to be given to them. A place where they can do little and be protected. Which world has more promise? Which world takes into account the natural state of man? Which world offers more opportunity and fairness?

The socialists feel that hard work is good, but fate is unfair and if we support each other we can become more free from the wheel of fortune.

More free that free huh? Freedom doesn’t mean good. Freedom means free to be good or bad. That’s pretty simple. When you say more free, you mean more free of the negative effects.

At the core, your above statement is true. If we support each other we CAN in fact become more free of the negative effects of chance. And I want to make this absolutely clear so I’ll bold it.

I am not advocating that people not help each other. I am advocating that people not be FORCED to help each other. People will naturally help each other if left alone.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

The 'swedish model' ventures to create a mix that achieves this in such a way that you're still stimulated to work to your best ability, but receive support when the wheel has left you temporarily unable. There are no out of jail free cards here, but there are reintegration programs.

The system of forced charity is altogether not necessary or good. Nor can it fully stimulate you to work to the best of your ability. I have an insurance policy against fire or accidental injury. I pay for it and the insurance company profits.

If not, then you've just negated society. Are you an anarchist? What's the point of something like GTPlanet? Why does that work?

Not it does not negate society and no I am not an anarchist.

If all of society could, by working together, help people like the above by building hospitals, fire brigades, first aid posts and orphanages, for a fraction of our wages because together it's a lot cheaper and efficient to pull off, is that our responsibility? No.

But would we? Yes.

Are you saying that people will voluntarily do these things? If so then you’ve negated your own position and it is not necessary for the government to tax to accomplish these things – people will donate to charity on their own.

It's all about the circumstances.

I'll get back to you on the scenarios, I have a date to go to.

I think it is independent of the circumstances but I look forward to your response on the scenarios.

 

[Arwin]

Imagine if we'd use voluntary donations instead of percentages. One year you'd have enough to hire 200 firemen, the next year maybe 50, then 150.

 

[Arwin]

As promised:

Let me pose a hypothetical scenario.

A child of rich parents grows up going to the best private schools money can buy. He makes fairly poor grades and flunks out of college. He inherits a large some of money that he then uses to finance a friends business in return for a portion of the company (and therefor profits). The friend works hard and does very well. The rich kid (now an adult) is making a pile of money.

A poor kid grows up going to some of the worst public schools our tax dollars purchase. He works hard and makes excellent grades but doesn't go to college because he needs to take a job to support a sick parent. He falls in love and has kids but now - since he didn't go to college - cannot afford to support the children and parents. He needs help.

Is it fair to take money from the rich person and give it to the poor person?

Have to point out here that in many Western countries that have a half-decent 'socialist' welfare, including the Swedish and the Dutch system, the poor kid would have gone to the same quality school as the rich kid, the sick parent would have gotten healthcare from his basic insurance, and therefore the poor kid doesn't need to quit his job. That in turn eventually makes him a nett tax contributor rather than a tax consumer (takes a while before the government supported education is paid for).

I know, it sounds like hell on earth, doesn't it?

(Even worse, the hard working parent could still receive some extra money for the children depending on how much money he makes, as a stimulus and reward for his investment in bringing new life to society. The latter stems from a Macro-economical understanding that the economy and pensions will need new blood in the next generations. )

But ok, let's take all that out of consideration, just for the fun of it. Would it be justified? I suppose it depends on the scenario below. If the answer is yes there, then the answer is yes. If the answer is no there, then the answer is no here.

Here's a different scenario.

A poor kid, through hard work and determination becomes extremely wealthy.

A rich kid pisses away his parent's fortune and is extremely poor and needs help.

Is it fair to take from the rich person and give to the poor here?

Is it fair independent of the scenario?
(Let's assume for the time being that people who have broken the law are all in jail)

As above. If the answer was yes above, then however foolishly he was blowing the money, the rich kid's money was taxed and that earns him welfare support. That's how the socialist system works, even in this simplified theoretical version you proposed - both ways.

 

[Danoff]

Imagine if we'd use voluntary donations instead of percentages. One year you'd have enough to hire 200 firemen, the next year maybe 50, then 150.

And if banks didn't exist that might be an issue.

I know, it sounds like hell on earth, doesn't it?

Quite.

Even worse, the hard working parent could still receive some extra money for the children depending on how much money he makes, as a stimulus and reward for his investment in bringing new life to society.

*Shudder*

I see your socialism is more deep rooted than I thought. Just for fun, let's forget about the fact that basic economics says your scenario doesn't work. In a perfectly communist world - which isn't perfect at all - what happens?


Guy A is a hard worker. He believes in his country. He has a wife and 2.5 kids and works in a fairly productive job (meaning his work does a lot for the country). He kicks butt every year and gets paid 6 bucks / hr.

Guy B is a lazy ass. He believes in his country too - that his country will support his laziness. He has a wife and 2.5 kids and works in a fairly productive job (meaning if he did his work well it would do a lot for the country). He drags butt every year and ges paid 6 bucks / hr.

Let's say guy A and guy B use the same number of government services. Guy A gets paid the same amount as guy B but works 3 times has hard and produces three times more. Is that fair?

the poor kid would have gone to the same quality school as the rich kid

Doesn't sound fair to me.

the sick parent would have gotten healthcare from his basic insurance

Also not fair.

takes a while before the government supported education is paid for

Also not fair.

and therefore the poor kid doesn't need to quit his job. That in turn eventually makes him a nett tax contributor rather than a tax consumer

He doesn't have any incentive to do that if everything is taken care of. He has no incentive whatsoever to become a net tax contributor. Afterall, he can't even use that money to give his kids better education or provide better health care for his family.

Even worse, the hard working parent could still receive some extra money for the children depending on how much money he makes, as a stimulus and reward for his investment in bringing new life to society. The latter stems from a Macro-economical understanding that the economy and pensions will need new blood in the next generations. )

That stems from a macro-economical delusion that it is a good idea to give parents an incentive to bring children into the world that "society" has to pay for.

the rich kid's money was taxed and that earns him welfare support.

Better to protect people from themselves eh? What if the rich kid never blew the money and never needed welfare support. Does that mean he should pay for it?

 

[Arwin]

And if banks didn't exist that might be an issue.

Ehm. Sure. Maybe now that there are websites, we can keep track of how much money needs to be donated where, why and when to keep what running, but seriously ... is that efficient? Does that create financial security? Are banks happy to run their business that way? The only way it will work if the company, like some benefit organisations now, build up a lot of cash for a long time until they have so much they can run on the interest. That only works as long as only a few do so though, otherwise the interest will be too low.

I see your socialism is more deep rooted than I thought.

On the contrary, you're just totally ignorant of how socialist ideas can work in an otherwise capitalistic environment; in other words, how the two ideas can be merged to work together.

Just for fun, let's forget about the fact that basic economics says your scenario doesn't work. In a perfectly communist world - which isn't perfect at all - what happens?

Let's forget about the fact that it works, not even in theoretical basic economics, but in practice? If you ever manage to get enough holidays and can spare the money, you're hereby invited to come over and have a look for yourself. I have plenty of spare bedrooms, because I work, and unlike people who don't work, I have a little bit more money to spare. And I'm not talking a few percent here, but a few hundred percent.

Guy A is a hard worker. He believes in his country. He has a wife and 2.5 kids and works in a fairly productive job (meaning his work does a lot for the country). He kicks butt every year and gets paid 6 bucks / hr.

Guy B is a lazy ass. He believes in his country too - that his country will support his laziness. He has a wife and 2.5 kids and works in a fairly productive job (meaning if he did his work well it would do a lot for the country). He drags butt every year and ges paid 6 bucks / hr.

Did I ever say that guy a and b would get equal pay? I didn't think so. Is a person less free because he was born to poorer parents? In your world, apparently yes, and quite a lot. Land of opportunity, American Dream, fact is (and there is *plenty* of evidence), that's a lot more true here than over there.

He doesn't have any incentive to do that if everything is taken care of. He has no incentive whatsoever to become a net tax contributor. Afterall, he can't even use that money to give his kids better education or provide better health care for his family.

But he can use the money to buy a bigger house, car, go on more holidays (we have 5 weeks a year btw), buy nicer clothes, buy computers and better computers, playstations, bikes, and tons of other stuff. He can also get more extensive health care plans that cover a little more things than the basics, same for other types of insurance.

Your 'everything is taken care of' applies to basic stuff, and ignores the fact that

That stems from a macro-economical delusion that it is a good idea to give parents an incentive to bring children into the world that "society" has to pay for.

Fine, whatever you choose to believe.

Better to protect people from themselves eh? What if the rich kid never blew the money and never needed welfare support. Does that mean he should pay for it?

What if you took out an insurance, but you never needed it?

I would like to see a few balance sheets, and see what you pay for and what you get for that money. It'd be interesting to compare these. I remember a friend of mine from Sweden looking at insurance costs in the US in astonishment, probably as shocked as you would be looking at what this friend used to pay in tax.

Like I explained before, using the library definition, neither Sweden nor the Netherlands can be categorised as Socialst nations. However, they do have more socialist concepts embedded in them than most US States (I kindof suspect big differences between states).

There are a lot of principles at work here that you approach in a very extremist/fundamentalist manner. I will keep reminding you that such extremes as you talk about do not exist. Someone who is unemployed here has to apply for a job every week to keep his benefits and those benefits are below minimum wage. Of course we always try to make sure that benefits only cover the bare minimum standards of living, unless perhaps someone has been rendered incapable of work through disability.

We understand and subscribe to parts of capitalism thought at least as much as we understand and subscribe to parts of socialist thought. We try to blend the best parts of them in the best way, as you do, but we end up with different mixes for a number of reasons.

I think you slightly underestimate the intelligence of the people in countries outside Sweden and the Netherlands. We're getting a little bit tired of being treated as retards when we try and seem to manage to come up with intelligent solutions to problems involving drugs, abortion, euthanesia, homosexuality, prostitution and so on.

Now apparently we're a nation of thieves. But then so are you, because the 12% difference in tax that we pay doesn't seem to make any fundamental difference. But then it would for you, because you probably object to that 25% you're already paying.

You'll have to trust me that we occasionally look at the US as a nation of barbarians in just the same way on a great number of issues, ranging from the political system, campaign funding, the death penalty, poverty rates, teen pregnancies, and so on.

There' s a lot to learn on both sides, that's for sure. That's why many countries always look across their borders for better ways of dealing with issues, looking to improve rather than confirm their own approaches ...

 

[ledhed]

Arwin you are aware that the US is governed by a socialist/ capitalist hybrid system , are you not ?

 

[Danoff]

My last post must have riled you up somehow. You seemed pretty irritated in your response. I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that you’re one of the most informed socialists I’ve ever had the opportunity to discuss economic principles with at length. I’m enjoying the discussion and I hope you are as well. Try not to take the things I say as a personal attack because I give you a great deal of credit for being willing to delve into these topics, follow and use logic, and find concrete examples.

Ehm. Sure. Maybe now that there are websites, we can keep track of how much money needs to be donated where, why and when to keep what running, but seriously ... is that efficient? Does that create financial security? Are banks happy to run their business that way? The only way it will work if the company, like some benefit organisations now, build up a lot of cash for a long time until they have so much they can run on the interest. That only works as long as only a few do so though, otherwise the interest will be too low.

If donations fluctuate substantially, then you have to save up a buffer and go on the average donation you’ve received over the last x number of years.

On the contrary, you're just totally ignorant of how socialist ideas can work in an otherwise capitalistic environment; in other words, how the two ideas can be merged to work together.

I wouldn’t say totally. I just don’t like the result when the two try to work together.

Let's forget about the fact that it works, not even in theoretical basic economics, but in practice?

I’ll concede that if your basic economic system is capitalist and you throw a few socialist measures on top – it will weigh down the economic system but it won’t kill it. The more socialist measures you throw on, the more you weigh down your economy until you – like Russia – collapse.

If you ever manage to get enough holidays and can spare the money, you're hereby invited to come over and have a look for yourself. I have plenty of spare bedrooms, because I work, and unlike people who don't work, I have a little bit more money to spare. And I'm not talking a few percent here, but a few hundred percent.

I make plenty of money and get more vacation than I’d expect. I’m glad to hear that if you work you can get ahead – at least a little.

Did I ever say that guy a and b would get equal pay? I didn't think so.

I was trying to establish a common ground from which to start. This appears to be it. Communism doesn’t work. You seem to agree with that.

Is a person less free because he was born to poorer parents? In your world, apparently yes, and quite a lot. Land of opportunity, American Dream, fact is (and there is *plenty* of evidence), that's a lot more true here than over there.

Don’t equate freedom with money. A person who is poor is not (and should not) be less free than a rich person. In fact, in most countries, there are more regulations on rich people – in which case they should be considered less free.

But he can use the money to buy a bigger house, car, go on more holidays (we have 5 weeks a year btw), buy nicer clothes, buy computers and better computers, playstations, bikes, and tons of other stuff. He can also get more extensive health care plans that cover a little more things than the basics, same for other types of insurance.

So then you at least admit that by removing a person’s ability to provide a better education, or health care, or whatever else is socialized, you remove at least some incentive to work harder. The more equal everyone is made to be, the less incentive there is to work hard. You start from pure capitalism where incentive is the strongest and go to complete communism where the incentive is gone.

Fine, whatever you choose to believe.

Do you believe that people who cannot afford children should be encouraged to have them anyway??

What if you took out an insurance, but you never needed it?

Sounds fine as long as it’s my choice.

I would like to see a few balance sheets, and see what you pay for and what you get for that money. It'd be interesting to compare these. I remember a friend of mine from Sweden looking at insurance costs in the US in astonishment, probably as shocked as you would be looking at what this friend used to pay in tax.

That’s probably so considering that when I look at what I pay in tax I’m astonished.

There are a lot of principles at work here that you approach in a very extremist/fundamentalist manner. I will keep reminding you that such extremes as you talk about do not exist.

What exactly do I say that is so extreme?

Someone who is unemployed here has to apply for a job every week to keep his benefits and those benefits are below minimum wage.

Which brings me to the issue of minimum wage being a bad thing that only causes greater unemployment and fewer opportunities for poor people.

Of course we always try to make sure that benefits only cover the bare minimum standards of living, unless perhaps someone has been rendered incapable of work through disability.

Bare minimum? That’s pretty bare.

I think you slightly underestimate the intelligence of the people in countries outside Sweden and the Netherlands. We're getting a little bit tired of being treated as retards when we try and seem to manage to come up with intelligent solutions to problems involving drugs, abortion, euthanesia, homosexuality, prostitution and so on.

I’m not trying to belittle your intelligence. Just because it’s fun I’ll deal with all of those issues…
Drugs should be allowed for adults
Abortion should be allowed
Euthanasia should be allowed
Homosexuality should be allowed and a partnership recognized by the state
Prostitution should be allowed.

Now apparently we're a nation of thieves. But then so are you,

That’s fair.

But then it would for you, because you probably object to that 25% you're already paying.

I object to part of what I am paying.


Perhaps I can ask how you propose getting around the problem that government inherently does things slowly and inefficiently? I don’t know how to get around that, which is why I advocate that everything that can be done well by the private sector be done by the private sector.

 

[Arwin]

one of the most informed socialists

Ok, first of all thanks for the kind words, and I now better understand what ground we're playing on. However, even if you say 'one of the most informed socialists', you're still calling me a socialist. I've been trying to explain how that's grossly overstating it, but I can see how from your perspective I am.

If donations fluctuate substantially, then you have to save up a buffer and go on the average donation you’ve received over the last x number of years.

Something most governments seem to have trouble with even with current tax systems. Of course you would say that's because they're governments and they have no incentive to getting it right through lack of competition ... But they still have budgets to balance and reelections to win.

I’ll concede that if your basic economic system is capitalist and you throw a few socialist measures on top – it will weigh down the economic system but it won’t kill it. The more socialist measures you throw on, the more you weigh down your economy until you – like Russia – collapse.

Let's for a moment disregard the possibility that the former Sovjet Union collapsed because of the burden of the Cold War (the fact that it lost can be attributed to many things, including its failing communist system).

Let's say for a moment that everything that is taxed to make 'socialist measures' possible, is instead freely donated by all subjects. Would this weigh down the economy in the same way?

I make plenty of money and get more vacation than I’d expect. I’m glad to hear that if you work you can get ahead – at least a little.

There are a lot of people in the U.S. that make plenty of money, and they're complaining about the tax they have to pay, but forget they make money in part thanks to a large number of people in the US work that probably work even harder (as in tons of hours a week, two jobs, and so on) and still fall below the poverty line with almost no chance to ever get out of that situation no matter how hard they work. If I wanted to use a controversial term, I might call that economic slavery.

I was trying to establish a common ground from which to start. This appears to be it. Communism doesn’t work. You seem to agree with that.

Yes, I agree. The incentive part is important. But on the other hand, pure Capitalism doesn't work either. It will lead to a very small group of rich people 'owning' a very large group of people that work for them.

Don’t equate freedom with money. A person who is poor is not (and should not) be less free than a rich person. In fact, in most countries, there are more regulations on rich people – in which case they should be considered less free.

I do partly equate freedom with money. And more regulations doesn't mean less free. On the contrary, it usually means they have more freedom to start with.

So then you at least admit that by removing a person’s ability to provide a better education, or health care, or whatever else is socialized, you remove at least some incentive to work harder. The more equal everyone is made to be, the less incentive there is to work hard. You start from pure capitalism where incentive is the strongest and go to complete communism where the incentive is gone.

Incentive works in many different ways. Structural poverty with no possibility to get out is also a good incentive for crime, or joining the 'volunteer' army.

Do you believe that people who cannot afford children should be encouraged to have them anyway??

No. On the other hand, if the extra money they get from the government is enough to allow them to afford children, there's no problem. Fact of the matter is, we don't have so many teen pregnancies as you (50% is the last number I read). Most people here have a long education, then start a career, and by the time they feel they should have kids, they're often above 30. The average age at which people get children is around 30 here, which is 11 years above the number for the US, a number that we used to have in the late sixties, early seventies.

Our replacement rate is about 1.7, the surplus created solely by immigration. In fact, next year the population may decrease for the first time in decades. In Sweden, this is a bigger problem. A few years ago the prime minister actually openly asked the Swedes to have more children, because the population was dwindling. You can ask yourself, what's the problem with that? Well, the younger generation needs to take care of the older generation. And as life expectancy rises very quickly in our countries, there are more and more older people to take care of. The economic return of a child raised in a Western society can be calculated, (genuinly) scary as that may seem, and the decision to stimulate and support people having them is not based on a whim.

What exactly do I say that is so extreme?

I suppose that comes from the same feeling you get from me. I suppose that in the US, you'd be considered a right-wing liberal. Our right wing liberals are still more 'socialist' than John Kerry.

Which brings me to the issue of minimum wage being a bad thing that only causes greater unemployment and fewer opportunities for poor people.

Not proven, but readily believed.

Bare minimum? That’s pretty bare.

That only depends on your definition of bare.

I’m not trying to belittle your intelligence. Just because it’s fun I’ll deal with all of those issues…
Drugs should be allowed for adults
Abortion should be allowed
Euthanasia should be allowed
Homosexuality should be allowed and a partnership recognized by the state
Prostitution should be allowed.

So at least 'us socialists' (really, we're not - just slightly more than you) got some things right then, from your perspective.

Perhaps I can ask how you propose getting around the problem that government inherently does things slowly and inefficiently? I don’t know how to get around that, which is why I advocate that everything that can be done well by the private sector be done by the private sector.

Our current approach is that private companies do what can be done by the private sector, but the state forces them to deliver a certain set of minimum coverage for a fixed price. For instance, insurance companies have to offer basic insurance levels for a fixed price to people whose yearly income is below a certain threshhold.

 

[Danoff]

Let's say for a moment that everything that is taxed to make 'socialist measures' possible, is instead freely donated by all subjects. Would this weigh down the economy in the same way?

Not quite. The waste caused by the government would be substantially less. Private charities do things FAR more efficiently than government “charity”. Even if it did weigh down the economy the same way (which it doesn’t) it would be better because the system would be voluntary.

There are a lot of people in the U.S. that make plenty of money, and they're complaining about the tax they have to pay, but forget they make money in part thanks to a large number of people in the US work that probably work even harder (as in tons of hours a week, two jobs, and so on) and still fall below the poverty line with almost no chance to ever get out of that situation no matter how hard they work. If I wanted to use a controversial term, I might call that economic slavery.

You might huh?
No chance no matter how hard they work? That’s not America – that’s not capitalism. I don’t make plenty of money thanks to anybody but me. I make plenty of money because I got an education and work hard. I don’t owe the janitors of this building any more than they owe me. They don’t make their money in spite of me or because of me. They make money because of their own hard work. But realize that here you’re equating hard work with muscles – which is some of the easiest work in existence. By that rationale a person operating a jackhammer works harder than a doctor or lawyer. But I would submit to you that doctors and lawyers work at least an order of magnitude harder than someone operating a jackhammer. Hell, I could go work a jackhammer today. I wouldn’t have a chance at being a doctor. It would take me 4 years of intensive work just to be able to get my foot in the door to become a doctor. And after that I’d have to deal with all of the sick patients, angry clients, or simple mental pressures of being a doctor or lawyer. The guy operating the jackhammer doesn’t have to worry about whether he’ll get sued. The guy operating the jackhammer doesn’t have to worry about whether the fuselage he just designed using the power of his brain will hold up when there are 200 lives on the line. The guy operating the jackhammer doesn’t have to know anything about his job other than “put jackhammer here, turn switch, and hold on” (ok well it is slightly more complicated but you get my point).

In truth if it were just as easy to be a doctor as it were a janitor, they’d be paid the same amount. But it is harder to be a doctor. It is harder (and more productive) to use your brain.

Yes, I agree. The incentive part is important. But on the other hand, pure Capitalism doesn't work either.

Agreed. But not quite for the reasons you state.

I do partly equate freedom with money.

That’s a mistake. Freedom goes beyond class. Freedom is what allows us all to choose our own destiny. Freedom is a set of laws that protects us from each other and an oppressive government. It is not tied to money. Money buys you possessions, but in a perfect society it does not buy any other power than the power to make more money and buy more stuff (insurance, health care, education included in stuff).

And more regulations doesn't mean less free. On the contrary, it usually means they have more freedom to start with.

Nobody in the US starts with any more freedom than anyone else. More regulations is the definition of less free to me.

Incentive works in many different ways. Structural poverty with no possibility to get out is also a good incentive for crime, or joining the 'volunteer' army.

The US does not have structural poverty.

No. On the other hand, if the extra money they get from the government is enough to allow them to afford children, there's no problem.

This misunderstands the way government works. Government says, “have kids, we’ll pay for it.” People go have kids. The government says “somebody think of the children, there are so many we need more money.” Taxes are raised. The government says “have kids we’ll pay for it.”

Fact of the matter is, we don't have so many teen pregnancies as you (50% is the last number I read).

I don’t really care about teen pregnancy. It’s more cultural than anything. It really has nothing to do with government.

Most people here have a long education, then start a career, and by the time they feel they should have kids, they're often above 30.

Which is actually a bad thing.

Well, the younger generation needs to take care of the older generation.

That’s lovely. In America this is not the goal. The goal for each individual is to be able to provide for themselves and their children and not only not be a burden on anyone in old age, but to actually leave money behind when you die.

I suppose that comes from the same feeling you get from me. I suppose that in the US, you'd be considered a right-wing liberal.

I my country I’m considered a centrist or an extremist depending on how you look at it. I’m not really right or left wing here. I’m a libertarian.

Not proven, but readily believed.

I’m going to bump my minimum wage thread so that we can get into it.

That only depends on your definition of bare.

…and minimum.

So at least 'us socialists' (really, we're not - just slightly more than you) got some things right then, from your perspective.

You guys got some things right in my opinion. But those things have nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with freedom. I’m all about freedom, economically and socially. Those are social freedoms, but I figured I’d answer those questions just so that you knew that we did agree on those things.

Our current approach is that private companies do what can be done by the private sector, but the state forces them to deliver a certain set of minimum coverage for a fixed price. For instance, insurance companies have to offer basic insurance levels for a fixed price to people whose yearly income is below a certain threshhold.

This causes insurance benefits to go down, or costs to go up (at least where cost is not regulated) or both and causes fewer jobs to be created.

When you say to an employer. “You must provide a minimum of X to employ someone”. You’re giving that employer more reason not to hire. We should take this part of the discussion to the minimum wage thread.

 

[Arwin]

Not quite. The waste caused by the government would be substantially less. Private charities do things FAR more efficiently than government “charity”. Even if it did weigh down the economy the same way (which it doesn’t) it would be better because the system would be voluntary.

Well, to use a phrase, welcome to last year. We've reinvestigated just about all that we could privatise these last ten years and we're starting to discover the limits. Also, recent history has plenty of examples of companies doing a very bad job, or getting as complacent as any government has allowed itself to get. In fact some companies can attain more comfortable positions than some government bodies because at least elections have a say. I'm not saying that private companies can do a lot of things very well and often better, but not nearly always and not nearly on principle.

You might huh?
No chance no matter how hard they work? That’s not America – that’s not capitalism.

Face up to the facts. Capitalism does not lead to equality, but to its exact opposite, from the simple principle that it is easier to make more money with more money. It's not hard to see how that will never 'pan out'.

I don’t make plenty of money thanks to anybody but me. I make plenty of money because I got an education and work hard. I don’t owe the janitors of this building any more than they owe me. They don’t make their money in spite of me or because of me. They make money because of their own hard work.

I see that you want to give the American Dream new meaning.

But realize that here you’re equating hard work with muscles – which is some of the easiest work in existence. By that rationale a person operating a jackhammer works harder than a doctor or lawyer. But I would submit to you that doctors and lawyers work at least an order of magnitude harder than someone operating a jackhammer. Hell, I could go work a jackhammer today. I wouldn’t have a chance at being a doctor. It would take me 4 years of intensive work just to be able to get my foot in the door to become a doctor. And after that I’d have to deal with all of the sick patients, angry clients, or simple mental pressures of being a doctor or lawyer.

Oh yes, the guy with the jackhammer is certianly better off than the lawyer or doctor. I work at a lawfirm and two of my friends are becoming doctors, and sure thing their lives suck and they'd trade places with the jackhammer guy anyday.

The guy operating the jackhammer doesn’t have to worry about whether he’ll get sued. The guy operating the jackhammer doesn’t have to worry about whether the fuselage he just designed using the power of his brain will hold up when there are 200 lives on the line. The guy operating the jackhammer doesn’t have to know anything about his job other than “put jackhammer here, turn switch, and hold on” (ok well it is slightly more complicated but you get my point).

Yes, I get your point. You get paid more because you carry more responsibility. The point of the article I read was that the jackhammer guy can literally break his back trying (one of the 'perks' of being a jackhammer guy) but will never get anywhere, and he never in his life had the choice between being a jackhammer guy or becoming a doctor or lawyer. I'd like to know how you think he could have done it. You seem to think he was just too lazy, afraid from responsibility, or just doesn't have it in the brain department:

In truth if it were just as easy to be a doctor as it were a janitor, they’d be paid the same amount. But it is harder to be a doctor. It is harder (and more productive) to use your brain.

... but the truth is if you work two jobs and still can hardly make ends meet, you can't put in an extra effort to work your way up.

That’s a mistake. Freedom goes beyond class. Freedom is what allows us all to choose our own destiny.

And poverty is the greatest choice limiter that exists. Over here, if despite their home environment children manage to do good in school then despite lack of interest, financial support, or whatever, they can still go to the best university the country has to offer (and all of our universities rank very highly in the world).

Freedom is a set of laws that protects us from each other and an oppressive government.

That oppressive government is the same that upholds the laws to protect you from each other, right?

It is not tied to money. Money buys you possessions, but in a perfect society it does not buy any other power than the power to make more money and buy more stuff (insurance, health care, education included in stuff).

By that token, I think I can prove our mix of socialism and capitalism may well be quite a bit closer to being a perfect society by your own definitions than your own.

Nobody in the US starts with any more freedom than anyone else. More regulations is the definition of less free to me.

When it comes to money you do strike me as slightly naive at this point.

The US does not have structural poverty.

No, of course they don't. How many poor people do you know, by the way?

This misunderstands the way government works. Government says, “have kids, we’ll pay for it.” People go have kids. The government says “somebody think of the children, there are so many we need more money.” Taxes are raised. The government says “have kids we’ll pay for it.”

Well not our government. If that thinks we have enough, we just say ok from now on you get less or no money for any kid you get more than 2. Or you get less money for every extra kid you get. This is not something I just make up, so I can state for a fact and by example that government doesn't work like that by default.

I don’t really care about teen pregnancy. It’s more cultural than anything. It really has nothing to do with government.

There's enough evidence to link it to average education, providing a stable environment to children for growing up, and so on ...

Which is actually a bad thing.

... and so it is not. The only downside is that it gets harder to get pregnant at later ages and there are more chances of complications. But that effect as yet does not even come close to weighing up against the advantages of a stable and secure home environment.

That’s lovely. In America this is not the goal. The goal for each individual is to be able to provide for themselves and their children and not only not be a burden on anyone in old age, but to actually leave money behind when you die.

Here too, we build up our own pensions. But even if you have lots of money, you still need people to employ.

I my country I’m considered a centrist or an extremist depending on how you look at it. I’m not really right or left wing here. I’m a libertarian.

Yes, I came across the term libertarian a few times before on this board ... Have to admit though that if it wasn't for this board, I'd never have heard of it.

You guys got some things right in my opinion. But those things have nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with freedom. I’m all about freedom, economically and socially. Those are social freedoms, but I figured I’d answer those questions just so that you knew that we did agree on those things.

We're all about freedom too. It's just that one person's freedom infringes on the other's. Finding the right balance and understanding what freedom is important enough to protect over another is key.

This causes insurance benefits to go down, or costs to go up (at least where cost is not regulated) or both and causes fewer jobs to be created.

This is true ... but not for all. Currently many in the US don't have an insurance.

When you say to an employer. “You must provide a minimum of X to employ someone”. You’re giving that employer more reason not to hire. We should take this part of the discussion to the minimum wage thread.

I suppose that in your near religious perspective the employer is a sacred entity that should be pleased and courted at all costs, because whatever is good for the employer is good for the country ...

Seriously, this view of minimum wage has so far not been proven at all. There are however examples of the opposite, such as the United Kingdom, which experimented with something like that for a while.

Over here we've had discussions on lowering or abolishing minimum wages from time to time. Also, the incentive from working a small job for only a few hours or very low paid in relation to someone's 'dole' - all discussed to great extent, calculated, and so on. It's on-going, there are certainly issues that need to be dealt with. We'll discuss them in the other thread.

@ledhed: yes, I know.

 

[Danoff]

Well, to use a phrase, welcome to last year. We've reinvestigated just about all that we could privatise these last ten years and we're starting to discover the limits. Also, recent history has plenty of examples of companies doing a very bad job, or getting as complacent as any government has allowed itself to get. In fact some companies can attain more comfortable positions than some government bodies because at least elections have a say. I'm not saying that private companies can do a lot of things very well and often better, but not nearly always and not nearly on principle.

You’re mixing the issue of companies getting unfair treatment (which is what you get in a large government bureaucracy) with the issue of private charities doing an excellent job. Would you argue that the salvation army or the red cross does not use their money as efficiently as the government does?

Face up to the facts. Capitalism does not lead to equality,

…and that’s a good thing. Not that it’s possible to achieve equality.

but to its exact opposite, from the simple principle that it is easier to make more money with more money. It's not hard to see how that will never 'pan out'.

But you’re misunderstanding economics. You assume that in order to make money you have to make it from someone else. Money can be created and destroyed. There is not one pie that we’re all trying to get pieces of but an ever expanding pie. When I make money I don’t make it at someone else’s expense. Quite the opposite, I make it at someone else’s benefit. I make other people money when I make money for myself. This in fact leads to more equality than is present in most socialist countries. The fact is that capitalism is good for economies. Good for rich people, good for poor people, and good from a perspective of morality.

Oh yes, the guy with the jackhammer is certianly better off than the lawyer or doctor. I work at a lawfirm and two of my friends are becoming doctors, and sure thing their lives suck and they'd trade places with the jackhammer guy anyday.

I didn’t say he was better off. I said there was a trade off. Ever watch the movie office space?

The point of the article I read was that the jackhammer guy can literally break his back trying (one of the 'perks' of being a jackhammer guy) but will never get anywhere,

I don’t know how you can make that assertion.

and he never in his life had the choice between being a jackhammer guy or becoming a doctor or lawyer.

Again I don’t know how you make this assertion.
My parents didn’t send me to college I paid for it by working my ass off. My parents didn’t send me to a great high school, they sent me to a crappy public run school (no coincidence that it’s public).

You seem to think he was just too lazy, afraid from responsibility, or just doesn't have it in the brain department:

Some people prefer to work the jackhammer. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think anyone actually chooses to break rocks and concrete or clean up **** for a living, but people do make a whole series of choices that lead them there. At ever step they stayed on their path to jackhammerdum by their own will – and they stay on that path as they work the jackhammer or clean another toilet and choose not to take another course.

... but the truth is if you work two jobs and still can hardly make ends meet, you can't put in an extra effort to work your way up.

…if you work two jobs and still can hardly make ends meet. It doesn’t take two jobs to make ends meet. It takes one low paid part time job. I did it. The trick is figuring out that you want more out of life before you end up dealing with more to pay for.

And poverty is the greatest choice limiter that exists.

Not really what I’m talking about. I don’t mean choice to consume, I mean choice to pursue. Choice of focus, choice of direction.

Over here, if despite their home environment children manage to do good in school then despite lack of interest, financial support, or whatever, they can still go to the best university the country has to offer (and all of our universities rank very highly in the world).

Same here. Children who do exceptionally will get huge scholarships and stipends to go to the best colleges.

That oppressive government is the same that upholds the laws to protect you from each other, right?

Checks and balances.

By that token, I think I can prove our mix of socialism and capitalism may well be quite a bit closer to being a perfect society by your own definitions than your own.

I might concede some socialist concepts. Ideas like a fire department or public roads.

When it comes to money you do strike me as slightly naive at this point.

I was just thinking the same thing.

No, of course they don't. How many poor people do you know, by the way?

I’ve known a lot of poor people. I’ve known a few people that were unbelievably poor… and had poor children. I too have spent quite a bit of time below the poverty line.

Well not our government. If that thinks we have enough, we just say ok from now on you get less or no money for any kid you get more than 2. Or you get less money for every extra kid you get. This is not something I just make up, so I can state for a fact and by example that government doesn't work like that by default.

…you kinda missed what I was talking about (not that I helped all that much with my example). I was talking about how it’s the nature of government to grow. It is the nature of government to use poor performance as a reason for increased funding.

There's enough evidence to link it to average education, providing a stable environment to children for growing up, and so on ...

LOL. But what does that have to do with government?

... and so it is not. The only downside is that it gets harder to get pregnant at later ages and there are more chances of complications. But that effect as yet does not even come close to weighing up against the advantages of a stable and secure home environment.

There’s a balance there. Obviously if you wait too long to have a secure home environment your children could pay the price in birth defects and so on. Older age is not necessarily good, that was my point.

Here too, we build up our own pensions. But even if you have lots of money, you still need people to employ.

???

We're all about freedom too. It's just that one person's freedom infringes on the other's.

This is fundamental. This is key! One person’s freedom does not (let me repeat that) DOES NOT …. and… SHOULD NOT infringe on anyone else’s. This quote explains to me that you do not understand freedom. How does one person’s freedom ever infringe on anyone else’s? (and don’t tell me that one person’s freedom to kill another person infringes on the killed person’s freedom to live)

This is true ... but not for all. Currently many in the US don't have an insurance.

…and many of those people are filthy stinking rich, or are college student that wanted the extra beer money.

I suppose that in your near religious perspective the employer is a sacred entity that should be pleased and courted at all costs, because whatever is good for the employer is good for the country

This does not follow from my example at all. I was simply showing how the employer would (and does) react to regulation – meaning that regulation is causing ill effects.

Seriously, this view of minimum wage has so far not been proven at all. There are however examples of the opposite, such as the United Kingdom, which experimented with something like that for a while.

Please cite these “examples” in the minimum wage thread.

Over here we've had discussions on lowering or abolishing minimum wages from time to time. Also, the incentive from working a small job for only a few hours or very low paid in relation to someone's 'dole' - all discussed to great extent, calculated, and so on. It's on-going, there are certainly issues that need to be dealt with. We'll discuss them in the other thread.

I don’t know how you can weigh someone providing for themselves and producing for the country against someone who does not.

 

[xcsti]

Wow I hope I never have so much time that I can read all of this thread. You guys should print this, maybe title it "Plato's Republic revised by GTP".

I hope I can contribute here.

 

[Arwin]

You’re mixing the issue of companies getting unfair treatment (which is what you get in a large government bureaucracy) with the issue of private charities doing an excellent job. Would you argue that the salvation army or the red cross does not use their money as efficiently as the government does?

Your arguing that they do so more efficient, and by default. I'm contesting that, especially the latter.

But you’re misunderstanding economics. You assume that in order to make money you have to make it from someone else. Money can be created and destroyed. There is not one pie that we’re all trying to get pieces of but an ever expanding pie. When I make money I don’t make it at someone else’s expense. Quite the opposite, I make it at someone else’s benefit.

Suuure. Economic slavery, child labor, all of that does not exist. I'm not saying that it will *never* benefit someone else, certainly not. But your assumption that it does always is nonsense. Money is power, and power means you can get yourself a much larger part of the pie and give others a smaller piece of a pie even when it is expanding. Again, examples abound.

I make other people money when I make money for myself. This in fact leads to more equality than is present in most socialist countries. The fact is that capitalism is good for economies. Good for rich people, good for poor people, and good from a perspective of morality.

Yes capitalism is good for economies, good for rich people, but it stops there. And your 'more equality than is present in most socialist countries' ... well, as I'm never sure what you mean with socialist countries exactly, give me some names of countries first and we can discuss further.

Again I don’t know how you make this assertion.
My parents didn’t send me to college I paid for it by working my ass off. My parents didn’t send me to a great high school, they sent me to a crappy public run school (no coincidence that it’s public).

That's it, isn't it? You could make it, so everyone else should be able to.

Some people prefer to work the jackhammer. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think anyone actually chooses to break rocks and concrete or clean up **** for a living, but people do make a whole series of choices that lead them there. At ever step they stayed on their path to jackhammerdum by their own will – and they stay on that path as they work the jackhammer or clean another toilet and choose not to take another course.

Ah the great delusion that we are all master of our own fate ... Sure enough we can have a big influence, but not always.

…if you work two jobs and still can hardly make ends meet. It doesn’t take two jobs to make ends meet. It takes one low paid part time job. I did it. The trick is figuring out that you want more out of life before you end up dealing with more to pay for.

Depends on your situation. Depends on many things.

Same here. Children who do exceptionally will get huge scholarships and stipends to go to the best colleges.

That's the opposite of the same.

I’ve known a lot of poor people. I’ve known a few people that were unbelievably poor… and had poor children. I too have spent quite a bit of time below the poverty line.

But it was all their own fault and they could all get out of it if they wanted to. Right?

…you kinda missed what I was talking about (not that I helped all that much with my example). I was talking about how it’s the nature of government to grow. It is the nature of government to use poor performance as a reason for increased funding.

Then why in 30 years did taxes in Western countries stay at the same level or why did taxes go down in the Netherlands (and the US)?

???

Who's going to change your diapers when you're 80 and loaded?

This is fundamental. This is key! One person’s freedom does not (let me repeat that) DOES NOT …. and… SHOULD NOT infringe on anyone else’s. This quote explains to me that you do not understand freedom. How does one person’s freedom ever infringe on anyone else’s? (and don’t tell me that one person’s freedom to kill another person infringes on the killed person’s freedom to live)

One person's freedom does not infringe on anyone else's? In what fantasy world do you live? What toybook definition of freedom do you use? If you say 'should not' then yes, that's the basic fundamental limit to freedom if you live in a society. But if you say does not, then you're mad.

…and many of those people are filthy stinking rich, or are college student that wanted the extra beer money.

Myah, many ... . Sure. But in fact you're wrong. People who cannot afford insurance make up the largest share of those without an insurance. And besides that, the freedom not to be insured is one example of one that can severely limit the freedom of others as well as your own, which is why we voluntarily surrender it.

If a whole country chooses to organise their lives this way, and they do so without relinquishing the power to change at will, they cannot be less free than they were before.

 

[milefile]

Ah the great delusion that we are all master of our own fate ...

This is what offends me most of all about liberalism. Is that supposed to be an argument?

 

[Arwin]

This is what offends me most of all about liberalism. Is that supposed to be an argument?

I'm glad I decided to look up liberalism, because I was getting confused:

Liberalism
Liberalism can be understood as (1) a political tradition (2) a political philosophy and (3) a general philosophical theory, encompassing a theory of value, a conception of the person and a moral theory as well as a political philosophy. As a political tradition liberalism has varied in different countries. In England — in many ways the birthplace of liberalism — the liberal tradition in politics has centred on religious toleration, government by consent, personal and, especially, economic freedom. In France liberalism has been more closely associated with secularism and democracy. In the United States liberals often combine a devotion to personal liberty with an antipathy to capitalism, while the liberalism of Australia tends to be much more sympathetic to capitalism but often less enthusiastic about civil liberties.
source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

Talking about cultural differences!

As for you taking offense, in these times in which nature vs nurture debates in psychology, genetics, biology, pedagogics, sociology and what not have taught us a lot about how an individual human being works and interacts with his environment, I consider the belief in having ultimate power over your own destiny a myth similar to god having created the Earth about 4000 years ago.

 

[milefile]

You're doing it again.

Communism is the consumation of liberalism. Socialism is stripped down communism. I don't have to look it up because I'm not going to argue with someone who resorts to redefining the vocabulary to suit his argument. For you to assume your citation is the final word on anything is as ridiculous as assuming God created the Earth 4000 years ago. I can't take you seriously when you dig up these things for no other reason than an attempt at making others appear as if they are misusing words when you know they are not, and you know exactly what they mean.

The word "liberal" is taken from the word "liberty" which is taken from the latin root "liber" which means "book", "freedom", and upon more in depth, philological study, excessiveness, abandon, and bacchanalian chaos in a sacred sense. It has been simplified to "creative force" as have all words of this type.

"Liberal" is also commonly used to decscibe "a lot" or "too much" as in "apply liberally".

But like I said before, you knew what I meant.

 

[Danoff]

Your arguing that they do so more efficient, and by default. I'm contesting that, especially the latter.

You didn’t answer my question. I’m surprised you want me to prove this. But I suppose I must…

Suuure. Economic slavery, child labor, all of that does not exist.

You’re still not understanding freedom – more on that in a second.

Money is power, and power means you can get yourself a much larger part of the pie and give others a smaller piece of a pie even when it is expanding. Again, examples abound.

Give me examples of that in the US where laws were broken and where it is not the result of too much government.

Yes capitalism is good for economies, good for rich people, but it stops there.

Why? Why must it stop there. Why is free trade not good for poor people?

as I'm never sure what you mean with socialist countries exactly, give me some names of countries first and we can discuss further.

Pick one you know well and we’ll discuss. You dodged my response that equality was not only impossible but also not a good goal.

That's it, isn't it? You could make it, so everyone else should be able to.

Not really. I know other people could if they chose to.

Ah the great delusion that we are all master of our own fate ... Sure enough we can have a big influence, but not always.

We are all the master of our own fate.

That's the opposite of the same.

Children who do well here get in to college at the college’s chosen expense. That’s how it should be because that’s the way it works in capitalism. Hard work = Payoff.
One of the major differences is that over here the kids are paying for themselves (by boosting the college’s statistics) whereas over there the kids are a drain on society. You’re going to say that when they graduate they will not be a drain and, though there is no guarantee of that, I would submit that a system of debt is a bad system.

But it was all their own fault and they could all get out of it if they wanted to. Right?

Yup. I watched decision after decision put them where they were. And yet more decisions kept them there.

Then why in 30 years did taxes in Western countries stay at the same level or why did taxes go down in the Netherlands (and the US)?

In 30 years taxes have been all over the place. Who did they go down on? Who did they go up on? Let’s look at government spending as a percentage GDP over the last 100 years. How do you think the chart will look?

Who's going to change your diapers when you're 80 and loaded?

Effectively I will. My money will. Unless my kids just like me that much…

One person's freedom does not infringe on anyone else's? In what fantasy world do you live?

I live in the fantasy world of the US. You didn’t answer my request for a good example of one person’s freedom infringing on someone else’s… an example that doesn’t break laws.

Myah, many ... . Sure. But in fact you're wrong. People who cannot afford insurance make up the largest share of those without an insurance.

I said many, I stick by many. There is nothing wrong with not being able to afford health insurance. I was, at one point, unable to afford health insurance. Right now my health insurance costs me a grand total of 50 bucks per month and it's more than I need. Even in college I could have afforded that.

And besides that, the freedom not to be insured is one example of one that can severely limit the freedom of others as well as your own,…

How?

If a whole country chooses to organise their lives this way,

Don’t dilute yourself. A whole country – especially if you look at it on a larger scale – a whole world will not choose to organize their lives this way.

and they do so without relinquishing the power to change at will, they cannot be less free than they were before.

Certainly they can. Choosing to tax the rich more than the poor is like choosing to tax the black more than the white. Black people would be less free – regardless of whether or not society at large had the freedom to change at will.

 

[Arwin]

Ok, the multiqoute thing is starting to hurt my head a little. I think we have to reorganise some stuff into separate issues and maybe create different threads if necessary.

On the whole, I recognise a few issues here.

Freedom
You ask me to provide an example of where a freedom of one limits the freedom of another, which does not break laws. First of all, the mere fact that there are laws and that you make an exception to them for me picking an example proves that one person's freedom can limit another's. That is what we have the laws for in the first place. Now there are a bunch of laws in one country that aren't present in the other, and looking at those differences alone should render more than enough examples. One of them is the death penalty and the lives that were taken, even legally, of people who later proved to be not guilty. As for rich people being stolen from, our premise is that the strongest shoulders carry the most weight. This is something we find normal over here (mind you there are always exceptions), so it is institutionalised.

Tax and basic economics
When left alone, capitalism makes richer people richer and poorer people poorer. As an example, I submit India, although then again I could take any Western country as an example too because they will all show that the more capitalism is left to its own devices, the bigger the cleft becomes between rich and poor. Go to any global statistics website to see my point proven. Minimum wage is a law in our country instated to maintain a certain minimum standard of living in our country. Taxes are enforced by law too. See also how this relates to the Freedom topic. Pension plans and schooling falls under macro-economic population management, and what I meant with who will change your diapers is that your money can't do that (at best its expensive toilet paper), but you'll have to hire someone and for that to be possible there has to be enough personnel available. Of course you can import those at the last minute, if you don't care about the possibility of being treated by doctors and nurses who may not even speak your language. The same goes for schooling - our economy is dependent on knowledge workers for an increasing part, and our economy is based partly on having a well-educated workforce. In my view, we're doing a lot less than we should be doing to stimulate the development of that economic strength we have, being still too much involved with short term developments. You may not like debts as a means of investing and making a profit, but in the end it can and often does work.

 

[Arwin]

You're doing it again.

Communism is the consumation of liberalism. Socialism is stripped down communism. I don't have to look it up because I'm not going to argue with someone who resorts to redefining the vocabulary to suit his argument. For you to assume your citation is the final word on anything is as ridiculous as assuming God created the Earth 4000 years ago. I can't take you seriously when you dig up these things for no other reason than an attempt at making others appear as if they are misusing words when you know they are not, and you know exactly what they mean.

Now hang on. I dug up those words because I thought liberalism meant something else and now realise its one of those things that have different meanings in different parts of the world. While you jump to the conclusion that I'm trying to make you appear as if you were misusing words when I know they are not, I did the exact opposite. I didn't understand your use of the word liberalism, I looked it up, and released we use it differently in our parts of the world.

But like I said before, you knew what I meant.

No, I was genuinly confused.

 

[Danoff]

Arwin,

I think we need to proceed on a more fundamental level than the grounds you propose. I think we both recognize at this point that we’re not going to get far debating specific issues like minimum wage (which I care about) or teen pregnancy (which I don’t).

There are two discussions I’d like to have with you before we go on. The first should probably be Fate vs. Destiny. The second topic should be government efficiency (or lack thereof).

Even before those, I think we should lay out some groundwork. What I mean when I say “Free Society” is a society that permits free choice and action while protecting basic human rights (please tell me you think those exist at some level). I would submit that man does not have the freedom to kill other men inherently. The “freedom” to kill only exists when certain conditions are met. Those conditions are different at a local vs. national level.

Additionally, no man has the freedom to force others to provide for him. The “freedom” of slavery only exists when certain conditions are met. Those conditions exist only on a national scale.

This is the case with all “freedoms” that infringe on what I call basic human rights. That is fundamental purpose of the US Bill of Rights. To protect what we consider to be basic human rights, which can only be forfeit at any level - never removed (by vote or force).

Regardless of whether you agree that this is right, it is what I mean when I say a free society. So in my view one person’s freedom does not infringe upon any other person’s due to a basic set of human rights that can only be forfeit, never removed.

If you have any questions about the consistency of that view, post them here. I want to return to this discussion but I’m going to create a thread about the nature of choice.

 

[merseyxshore]

Apologies for the resurrection of a thread last posted in 17 years ago, but I'm curious to see what people's opinions on this are in 2021, especially the socialism side of things. It seems 'socialism' is one of the more popular catch-all boogeyman words in right wing politics of late, while at the same time socialist-leaning ideas appear to be gaining traction with the left-of-centre and especially younger people.

 

[Joey D]

Apologies for the resurrection of a thread last posted in 17 years ago, but I'm curious to see what people's opinions on this are in 2021, especially the socialism side of things. It seems 'socialism' is one of the more popular catch-all boogeyman words in right wing politics of late, while at the same time socialist-leaning ideas appear to be gaining traction with the left-of-centre and especially younger people.

Socialism only works if the government isn't completely useless. Since the US government is completely useless, I can't see it ever working here without major, major reforms. Let's take healthcare for example. I know there are many people in support of socialized medicine/one-payer healthcare, but here's the thing, we already have that in the US with Medicaid and Medicare. Both of those programs are so horribly run that I 100% do not want to be covered under them. Not to mention if we did away with traditional insurance, our healthcare system would sink since it's not built to run solely on government-funded health insurance.

Another instance of something that doesn't work in the US is social security. The government takes money from me to give to people who think they're entitled to my money because they "worked hard" or whatever. Sure that's all well and good, but many of those people who are getting social security had things like pensions, which no longer exist in a majority of jobs. I'd like to be able to control my own retirement instead of funding a broken system that likely won't be around by the time I'm 65-70.

Finally, let's take something like food stamps and welfare. While I agree there are people who genuinely need assistance, I don't think it's vetted well enough. I know students at expensive universities receiving government assistance because they simply claim that they have zero income despite their parents propping them up. I know there have been instances in Detroit (I'm sure in other places as well) where people were selling food stamps so they could get money for drugs, alcohol, whatever. If we're going to continue doing these programs, the participants need to be better vetted so that those who legitimately need help and who are struggling get help instead of letting people who want to game the system get it.

It's not just the left-wing that supports socialism either, the right-wing in the US supports it too even though they consider it a boogyman. The right-wing might even be more socialist since they frequently go to corporate welfare, which is significantly more expensive since it's doling out billions and billions of dollars. Corporations shouldn't get welfare. If they can't compete, they should either adapt or go out of business, not receive a bailout from the taxpayers only to continue doing the same stupid practices that got them into the mess they're in in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

Apologies for the resurrection of a thread last posted in 17 years ago, but I'm curious to see what people's opinions on this are in 2021, especially the socialism side of things. It seems 'socialism' is one of the more popular catch-all boogeyman words in right wing politics of late, while at the same time socialist-leaning ideas appear to be gaining traction with the left-of-centre and especially younger people.

I think the first thing I would do today, that I wouldn't have realized was important back then, is to divorce the socialism part from the communism part of this thread. I realize today how incompatible these two systems of government are. Back then, I probably would have assumed that socialism is a stepping stone to communism. Today, I realize that the US has been socialist for decades, and we're not headed for communism, we're headed for authoritarianism (if it's anything other than socialism).