Oppose Redistribution; Communism and Socialism

Page 1 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

06 Sep 2010, 8:54 pm

Rosennoir wrote:
Giving everyone an equal opportunity is okay. But in a system where everyone who has different abilities and strengths is allowed to pursue their own endeavors, inequality will be natural. Oppose redistribution of wealth to the parasites who seek to steal our livelihood. Let's keep Communism and Socialism where they belong. Not on this North American Continent.

I work for my dollars. I want them. I'm building my business from the ground up. I deserve the fruits of MY labor. I'll be damned if I pay a one-percent transaction tax. As a matter of fact I'll be damned if I sit down and let Social Security steal my money- the money of someone who will never retire. Giving our hard-earned money to those with disabilities, I applaud; I myself am handicapped. However, those who have no legitimate reason for not contributing to society are but leeches, and deserve none of my money; or yours for that matter. And I'm angry because that's what they think they're entitled to.

I doubt that the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" slogan, refers to leeching from the government.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Rosennoir
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 123

06 Sep 2010, 8:58 pm

greenblue wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
Giving everyone an equal opportunity is okay. But in a system where everyone who has different abilities and strengths is allowed to pursue their own endeavors, inequality will be natural. Oppose redistribution of wealth to the parasites who seek to steal our livelihood. Let's keep Communism and Socialism where they belong. Not on this North American Continent.

I work for my dollars. I want them. I'm building my business from the ground up. I deserve the fruits of MY labor. I'll be damned if I pay a one-percent transaction tax. As a matter of fact I'll be damned if I sit down and let Social Security steal my money- the money of someone who will never retire. Giving our hard-earned money to those with disabilities, I applaud; I myself am handicapped. However, those who have no legitimate reason for not contributing to society are but leeches, and deserve none of my money; or yours for that matter. And I'm angry because that's what they think they're entitled to.

I doubt that the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" slogan, refers to leeching from the government.


Well then, it's a good thing I never amounted that slogan to leeching from the government. But that's what it leads to and Communism, as we've seen, is either impossible to sustain, or can only be enforced through the barrel of a gun. Although Communism in China was actually Maoism and it was Stalinism in Russia. I've heard Communism hasn't actually been tried. But perhaps that's because it ignores the egoistic trait of humans. There will always be the selfish and there will always be the selfless. Any attempt to eliminate one or the other will fail and has failed.



mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

06 Sep 2010, 9:04 pm

Rosennoir wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
What do you think? SOMEONE must agree! MY money- MY choice!


Your money, your choice. Unfortunately the tax collector has a different view.

ruveyn


Taxes are necessary. Equally necessary is the regulation of their application. All in moderation I think.
No, they're not. Why do you think that a monopolistic and coercive state is a necessity? If there is widespread public demand for a social service and citizens are willing to spend their money on it then the market will provide that service. There are tons of private charities, most of which operate more efficiently then the government (where most of your money goes to support the lease on some retired (at 50 years of age) state worker's BMW). Just because there isn't a single, monopolistic (thus with no incentive to do it's job as effectively and efficiently as possible) entity doing the job of the government doesn't mean that there would be chaos and lawlessness.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Sep 2010, 9:27 pm

mcg wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
What do you think? SOMEONE must agree! MY money- MY choice!


Your money, your choice. Unfortunately the tax collector has a different view.

ruveyn


Taxes are necessary. Equally necessary is the regulation of their application. All in moderation I think.
No, they're not. Why do you think that a monopolistic and coercive state is a necessity? If there is widespread public demand for a social service and citizens are willing to spend their money on it then the market will provide that service. There are tons of private charities, most of which operate more efficiently then the government (where most of your money goes to support the lease on some retired (at 50 years of age) state worker's BMW). Just because there isn't a single, monopolistic (thus with no incentive to do it's job as effectively and efficiently as possible) entity doing the job of the government doesn't mean that there would be chaos and lawlessness.


Now tell me how that is going to buy our country a first class military establishment complete with nuclear deterrence. How big a customer base is there for Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers?

ruveyn



Rosennoir
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 123

06 Sep 2010, 9:28 pm

mcg wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
What do you think? SOMEONE must agree! MY money- MY choice!


Your money, your choice. Unfortunately the tax collector has a different view.

ruveyn


Taxes are necessary. Equally necessary is the regulation of their application. All in moderation I think.
No, they're not. Why do you think that a monopolistic and coercive state is a necessity? If there is widespread public demand for a social service and citizens are willing to spend their money on it then the market will provide that service. There are tons of private charities, most of which operate more efficiently then the government (where most of your money goes to support the lease on some retired (at 50 years of age) state worker's BMW). Just because there isn't a single, monopolistic (thus with no incentive to do it's job as effectively and efficiently as possible) entity doing the job of the government doesn't mean that there would be chaos and lawlessness.


Good point. handn't thought of that. Do you support voluntary taxation then? And are you a Libertarian? You sound it.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Sep 2010, 9:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:
How big a customer base is there for Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers?

I'll take three, please.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Sep 2010, 9:36 pm

Rosennoir wrote:

Good point. handn't thought of that. Do you support voluntary taxation then? And are you a Libertarian? You sound it.


Collective public goods can not be readily sold. For example National Defense. Who will voluntarily pay for a first rate modern military establishment. And there is the more general problem of the Free Riders. How do you deal with that?

Only those goods that can be produced privately and consumed privately can be sold on the market. National Defense is indivisible and collective in nature. It is either for everyone or for no one.

ruveyn



Apple_in_my_Eye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: in my brain

06 Sep 2010, 9:46 pm

So, you're saying that capitalism (such that it exists in reality, anyway) doesn't redistribute wealth?



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

06 Sep 2010, 9:47 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
What do you think? SOMEONE must agree! MY money- MY choice!


Your money, your choice. Unfortunately the tax collector has a different view.

ruveyn


God DAMN public roads, public prisons, and public courts. STEALING OUR HARD EARNED MONEY SO WE CAN LIVE IN A SOCIETY IN WHICH HARD EARNED MONEY IS POSSIBLE!



Rosennoir
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 123

06 Sep 2010, 9:52 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
What do you think? SOMEONE must agree! MY money- MY choice!


Your money, your choice. Unfortunately the tax collector has a different view.

ruveyn


God DAMN public roads, public prisons, and public courts. STEALING OUR HARD EARNED MONEY SO WE CAN LIVE IN A SOCIETY IN WHICH HARD EARNED MONEY IS POSSIBLE!


I hope you realize I'm talking about creating policies that can be the most efficient for the people who work and contribute to eliminate the leeches. I'm not saying paying for public infrastructure is a waste of money.

Sniveling brat.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

06 Sep 2010, 10:14 pm

Rosennoir wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
What do you think? SOMEONE must agree! MY money- MY choice!


Your money, your choice. Unfortunately the tax collector has a different view.

ruveyn


God DAMN public roads, public prisons, and public courts. STEALING OUR HARD EARNED MONEY SO WE CAN LIVE IN A SOCIETY IN WHICH HARD EARNED MONEY IS POSSIBLE!


I hope you realize I'm talking about creating policies that can be the most efficient for the people who work and contribute to eliminate the leeches. I'm not saying paying for public infrastructure is a waste of money.

Sniveling brat.


Your rhetoric has the implication - regardless, creating a "meritocracy" (as elusive as the state of society has been) would still require redistribution of wealth. Under your due diligence criterion, there's no reason the hereditary rich should be able to hoard wealth from the industrious.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Sep 2010, 10:21 pm

Rosennoir wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
What do you think? SOMEONE must agree! MY money- MY choice!


Your money, your choice. Unfortunately the tax collector has a different view.

ruveyn


God DAMN public roads, public prisons, and public courts. STEALING OUR HARD EARNED MONEY SO WE CAN LIVE IN A SOCIETY IN WHICH HARD EARNED MONEY IS POSSIBLE!


I hope you realize I'm talking about creating policies that can be the most efficient for the people who work and contribute to eliminate the leeches. I'm not saying paying for public infrastructure is a waste of money.

Sniveling brat.


Describing a competent engineer or technician who was fired after 30 years on the job because cheaper help could be found in Southeast Asia as a leech is rather nauseating language. Guys over 40 who have been kicked out of a job spend months and years trying to get a decent paying job and huge numbers find no takers. These decent people could, of course on your advice, quietly starve to death or commit suicide or perhaps rob banks but that seems not a good alternative to getting some kind of official help.



Rosennoir
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 123

06 Sep 2010, 10:48 pm

It should be the job of the State to ensure that they get jobs. Every person uses resources and thus every person who can should at least provide for themselves; I see no rational reason why every able-bodied person can't be employed.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Sep 2010, 11:15 pm

Rosennoir wrote:
It should be the job of the State to ensure that they get jobs. Every person uses resources and thus every person who can should at least provide for themselves; I see no rational reason why every able-bodied person can't be employed.


And, of course, the establishment of a huge bureaucracy to see to it that each person gets work will itself employ a huge number of people and require taxes to support it. Assuming private industry cannot absorb all the unemployed at a wage which will see to it they have a decent living new enterprises supported by government taxation will have to be established and this in itself will require further taxation. This system was envisioned in the Russian Soviet system and is popularly called communism. It was not noted particularly for its efficiency nor the quality of its output.



Rosennoir
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 123

06 Sep 2010, 11:28 pm

Sand wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
It should be the job of the State to ensure that they get jobs. Every person uses resources and thus every person who can should at least provide for themselves; I see no rational reason why every able-bodied person can't be employed.


And, of course, the establishment of a huge bureaucracy to see to it that each person gets work will itself employ a huge number of people and require taxes to support it. Assuming private industry cannot absorb all the unemployed at a wage which will see to it they have a decent living new enterprises supported by government taxation will have to be established and this in itself will require further taxation. This system was envisioned in the Russian Soviet system and is popularly called communism. It was not noted particularly for its efficiency nor the quality of its output.


Well then it seems the only system which can truly eliminate unemployment is Fascism if what you say is true. We also have computers; I'm sure there could be MANY automated systems in place to automatically correspond with businesses and corresponding local areas with job offerings for potential employees.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Sep 2010, 11:42 pm

Rosennoir wrote:
Sand wrote:
Rosennoir wrote:
It should be the job of the State to ensure that they get jobs. Every person uses resources and thus every person who can should at least provide for themselves; I see no rational reason why every able-bodied person can't be employed.


And, of course, the establishment of a huge bureaucracy to see to it that each person gets work will itself employ a huge number of people and require taxes to support it. Assuming private industry cannot absorb all the unemployed at a wage which will see to it they have a decent living new enterprises supported by government taxation will have to be established and this in itself will require further taxation. This system was envisioned in the Russian Soviet system and is popularly called communism. It was not noted particularly for its efficiency nor the quality of its output.


Well then it seems the only system which can truly eliminate unemployment is Fascism if what you say is true. We also have computers; I'm sure there could be MANY automated systems in place to automatically correspond with businesses and corresponding local areas with job
offerings for potential employees.


The assumption here is that private industry is in desperate need of employees who somehow are terribly ingenious in avoiding work and are living luxurious and carefree lives on unemployment insurance and some sort of welfare which is dispensing billions of dollars to anybody who happens to take the trouble to apply.
People in deep debt and not receiving earned wages do not spend much beyond absolute necessities. This means there is no market for producing a great deal of goods with no purchasers. That means that industry is capable of producing more than can be sold so they don't produce, or they produce outside the country where the wages do not contribute to the market consumers. Also, automation has made a good many manufacturing employees surplus and they are not needed.
How do you solve that?