Communism and Socialism

[Danoff]

Secondly, maybe I just never realized what an idealist you are and thats why nothing you say makes sense to me. If we believe in people they will do good, if we dont like the politicians we have, lets just get new ones! And surely the new ones will be better because surely the new ones are not equally as corrupt the old ones. Its a nice concept, but not very pragmatic.

I'm glad that you're realizing that I'm an idealist. This paragraph is rather cynical. New ones had better do better or they will be replaced... as long as voters care enough to do something about it. If they don't, then the politicians that pander to Disney get away with it.

The fact that politicians can be bought has nothing to do with how complex the programs that they pass (AFTER theyve been bought) are.

No, but it does has something to do with how complex the programs that have already been passed are. The more places that money gets poured into public projects, the more places for politicians to hide pork and the more people have a vested interest in lobbying.

Pork is bad, even when it's pork for the poor.

Heres basically what you are saying, we repeal laws that tax people and they will naturally WANT to donate money to charities, right? So using that logic, if we repealed the laws against, say, smoking crack then LESS people would smoke crack because for some reason, if we get rid of the laws that force people to do something, they will do the opposite just because they are so happy at not having to be forced to do it. I guess if we just BELIEVE in people then they will do good! Wow! It is like a ray of sunshine into my soul.

ooooooooohhhh. I get it. It's all so clear now. Thanks for making it EXTRA clear. Stupid me finally understands.

Except.

Smoking crack is not quite the same thing as being charitable now is it? How can you not believe that people will contribute - people contribute now! Think about all of the guilt that people already have about the homeless situation. Imagine how much worse that guilt would be if the government weren't supposedly doing something about it. People would contribute even more than they already are to charity and they would feel better about it. How can you not see that?

 

[Recury]

Originally posted by danoff
New ones had better do better or they will be replaced... as long as voters care enough to do something about it. If they don't, then the politicians that pander to Disney get away with it.

Thats exactly how democracy is supposed to work, yes. And it is too bad, but voters really dont care. Only half the people here vote and only a certain percentage of those people understand the issues enough to care about them. So we end up with people like Bush, who I think is doing a horrible job (big surprise). Who is my other choice? ****ing Kerry. Maybe Nader wouldnt be a special interest shill and maybe Ill vote for him, but not too many others will. The choices for the other positions are rarely better.

The more places that money gets poured into public projects, the more places for politicians to hide pork and the more people have a vested interest in lobbying.

To hide from who? The uncaring electorate?

Smoking crack is not quite the same thing as being charitable now is it?

Certainly not, otherwise it wouldnt be an analogy.

How can you not believe that people will contribute - people contribute now! Think about all of the guilt that people already have about the homeless situation. Imagine how much worse that guilt would be if the government weren't supposedly doing something about it. People would contribute even more than they already are to charity and they would feel better about it. How can you not see that?

I see what youre saying, I just disagree. Many people, usually those with money but also many in the working class, dont feel guilty at all about the homeless. They think, as the results of our poll show, that its their money and no one is taking it from them. It isnt just because they dont like having it taken from them, its that they genuinely dont give a **** about the homeless (at least, not enough to want to help them). Of course this isnt true for everyone, as Bill Gates showed, but there are a lot of people who feel this way who, despite that fact, still pay taxes.

 

[Danoff]

Certainly not, otherwise it wouldnt be an analogy.

I'm claiming that your analogy doesn't work because there are too many differences between the two scenarios.

but there are a lot of people who feel this way who, despite that fact, still pay taxes.

They don't have the choice not to pay taxes. Some people will not to give a dime of their money to the poor, and those people will have good reasons. Other people will give billions of dollars to the poor, and they will have good reasons. The point is, as milefile once put it, there is no room for compassion in a compulsory system.

 

[Recury]

I'm claiming that your analogy doesn't work because there are too many differences between the two scenarios.

Usually if one makes a claim like that, they try to back it up with something.

The point is, as milefile once put it, there is no room for compassion in a compulsory system.

You or milefile will have to explain this concept to me too. It seems to me that in a "compulsory system" that it is just as easy to be compassionate as it is in a non-compulsory one.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, I'll try to make this as clear as possible.

Heres basically what you are saying, we repeal laws that
tax people and they will naturally WANT to donate money to charities, right? So using that logic, if we repealed the laws against, say, smoking crack then LESS people would smoke crack because for some reason, if we get rid of the laws that force people to do something, they will do the opposite just because they are so happy at not having to be forced to do it.

Smoking crack is prohibited but people do it anyway.
Charity is forced so people don't give extra .

Very different. I don't see enough similarity in the situation to draw a parallel.


Or maybe you're saying

If we got rid of rules saying smoking crack is illegal people wouldn't stop.
If we got rid of rules saying charity is not forced, people wouldn't start?

Still not the same thing.

Let me try again

People do not want to be forced not to smoke crack, therefore, if not smoking crack was not forced, people would not start not smoking crack.
People do not want to be forced to give to charity, therefore, if giving to charity was not forced, people would not start giving to chartiy.

That would be if x is not forced, people would not start x.

That's parallel. Is that your argument?

 

[Danoff]

I'm going to assume that it is.

You're claiming that if something that people didn't want to be forced to do were not forced, people would not start doing it.

What if we lived in a society where we were forced to buy honda civics? That's the only car you can drive, a honda civic... everyone must own one.

People would hate that. They'd want to buy other types of cars, ///M-spec would go out of his mind wanting to buy his BMW or Infinity or Dodge (did you pick one yet M?).

They would want the law repealed very badly. But the phrase

People do not want to be forced to buy honda civics, therefore, if people were not forced to buy honda civics, they would not start.

would be completely wrong. So I have provided a counter example to your argument. That should be sufficient.


Edit: You might claim that people would give less to charity because they were not forced.

The line of reasoning there would be:

If people do not want to be forced to do x and they are not required to do x, they will not do as much x as they were forced to do before.

Partially that depends on the amount that they were forced to do x before.

But if you substitute something like sex in for x, you'll see that this is a flawed statement as well.

 

[Recury]

I dont know how you made my simple little argument so damned complicated, but I think somewhere in there you got it right.

Not smoking crack is forced.
Charity in the form of taxes that go to welfare is forced.

And what Im saying you said was:

If we remove the laws forcing charity in the form of taxes that go to welfare, then people will be more willing to donate.

Which is similar to:

If we remove the laws forcing people to not smoke crack, then people will be more willing to not smoke crack.

But all those double negatives made it needlessly complex. My fault.

Edit: You might claim that people would give less to charity because they were not forced.

This is what Im claiming. It doesnt work with sex because people want to have sex in the first place. People, by and large, would rather keep their money than donate it to charity.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by danoff
People would hate that. They'd want to buy other types of cars, ///M-spec would go out of his mind wanting to buy his BMW or Infinity or Dodge (did you pick one yet M?).

..or Mazda or Ford or Subaru or Audi. No, I haven't picked one End of the month, I will decide.


M

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Recury
This is what Im claiming. It doesnt work with sex because people want to have sex in the first place. People, by and large, would rather keep their money than donate it to charity.

But people, by and large, prefer to not see others suffer and fail, too.

 

[Recury]

I thought there was no room for compassion in a compulsory system. What happened to that?

 

[milefile]

Government coersion has a funny way of jading those who would otherwise be sensitive, especially when that government is seen as perpetuating the problem, indeed, needing such problems to justify itself.

 

[Danoff]

This is what Im claiming. It doesnt work with sex because people want to have sex in the first place. People, by and large, would rather keep their money than donate it to charity.

What about my honda civic example?

I thought there was no room for compassion in a compulsory system. What happened to that?

If you are forced to give money (compulsory), you cannot give it freely (compassion).

This statement works in extreme - the case of complete redistrobution of wealth. If all of my money is taken and redistributed back to me, I have no opportunity for compassion. I'm given exactly what I need and have no room to donate my excess (because I don't have any).

What we have in America is a degree of that. Because of taxes, there is less room for compassion. It's an abstract statement meant to point out a concept rather than exactly fit our current situation... still... it holds true in principle.

 

[Carl.]

Government coersion has a funny way of jading those who would otherwise be sensitive, especially when that government is seen as perpetuating the problem, indeed, needing such problems to justify itself.

If you are forced to give money (compulsory), you cannot give it freely (compassion).

If wealthier classes gave freely and generously to lower classes this much while they were entirely free to do so, then why were these coercitive measures created in the first place?

Another example: Unions. I hate the kind of abuse some workers that are overprotected by them can get away with, and it makes life harder for a lot of corporations... but without them would it still be acceptable nowadays to work 70 hours a week in a plant for a ridiculous income, kindly reminded to properly do your work by goons paid by the company? If that didn't happen in the first place, there would be absolutely no need for this kind of cercion on corporations.

This is the same for what you called the "White man's burden" (which I really don't feel by the way), the balance is going on the other side now only because there was a lot of abuse frome us in the first place. Do we care? sure we do... as long as we get away with it.

 

[Danoff]

If wealthier classes gave freely and generously to lower classes this much while they were entirely free to do so, then why were these coercitive measures created in the first place?

Let's be straight about this. These measures were inacted during the depression as a means of getting us through it (the depression was not caused by large corporations by the way). These measures were not what got us through it and they were not carefully thought out - they were slapped into law by panicked politicians. Now we're stuck with them.

Another example: Unions.

I don't have a problem with Unions, just laws protecting them.

"White man's burden" (which I really don't feel by the way)

Just accept what you're told by the media.



Edit: Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if it isn't the rich man's right to not have to give to the poor?

 

[milefile]

If wealthier classes gave freely and generously to lower classes this much while they were entirely free to do so, then why were these coercitive measures created in the first place?

Because you and other like-minded socialists have pushed off a pessimistic perspective on human potential on everyone you could. It is detrimental to the future of kindness, phillanthropy, and charity.

This is the same for what you called the "White man's burden" (which I really don't feel by the way), the balance is going on the other side now only because there was a lot of abuse frome us in the first place. Do we care? sure we do... as long as we get away with it.

So now we need to settle the score, eh? Why not take it it's logical outcome right now? Why not start enslaving those who's ancestors may have had a role in oppressing blacks or other minorities?

I am not responsible for the oppression of anyone. I accept no responsibility whatsoever for slavery or any other oppression of any group. I reject the idea that future injustice against past oppressors' decendants is good for anyone.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if it isn't the rich man's right to not have to give to the poor?

Obvuiously he hasn't or he'd have no way of justifying his politics of degeneracy. Rights? What rights? Success is a crime.

 

[Recury]

Originally posted by danoff
I'm going to assume that it is.

You're claiming that if something that people didn't want to be forced to do were not forced, people would not start doing it.

What if we lived in a society where we were forced to buy honda civics? That's the only car you can drive, a honda civic... everyone must own one.

I'm not claiming that. Im claiming that if people were forced to buy honda civics, they would buy many and if they were not (as they are now) they would still buy them, just fewer of them.

If you are forced to give money (compulsory), you cannot give it freely (compassion).
This statement works in extreme - the case of complete redistrobution of wealth.

I agree. But I dont think we'd use the extra "room" if we had it, frankly.

Government coersion has a funny way of jading those who would otherwise be sensitive, especially when that government is seen as perpetuating the problem, indeed, needing such problems to justify itself.

So you think that these people who dont care about those less fortunate than they would suddenly start caring if we didnt have the welfare system then? I really dont think thats the case. Hell, theyll probably tell you that themselves.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not claiming that. Im claiming that if people were forced to buy honda civics, they would buy many and if they were not (as they are now) they would still buy them, just fewer of them.

The validity of this statement depends on how many they were forced to buy before (I pointed that out).

I agree. But I dont think we'd use the extra "room" if we had it, frankly.

There are plenty of rich people (movie stars and the like) who have lots of money and want to give gobs of it to charity. They do already use this extra "room" so I'm surprised that you think people wouldn't.

You are correct... when you put a gun to someone's head you can get them to give you more of their possessions then when you allow them to give it freely. Which one is the right thing to do?

 

[Recury]

Um, they cant use extra room if they dont even have it yet.

You are correct... when you put a gun to someone's head you can get them to give you more of their possessions then when you allow them to give it freely. Which one is the right thing to do?

I already told you, my way is the right way to do it.

The validity of this statement depends on how many they were forced to buy before (I pointed that out).

Yes, and it does depend on that and yes, it is valid.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if it isn't the rich man's right to not have to give to the poor?

Obvuiously he hasn't or he'd have no way of justifying his politics of degeneracy. Rights? What rights? Success is a crime.

Oh, so thats the problem! Rich people dont have enough rights. I guess Im just not compassionate enough to put myself in other peoples shoes.

 

[Danoff]

Rich people dont have enough rights.

All people, not just poor people, own their property. It is not morally justified to take something someone has earned and give it to someone who has not on the basis that they need it more. Even if it were the side affects are bad, it subverts capitalsim and hurts the economy while hurting charity and overall morale. It doesn't work from any angle.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Recury
Oh, so thats the problem! Rich people dont have enough rights. I guess Im just not compassionate enough to put myself in other peoples shoes.

Are you sarcastically implying rich people have more rights than poor people?

If so, you're dead wrong. Rich people have more priveleges, more resources, more opportunities, yes. But they have precisely the same rights as poor people. In fact, given the state of tax laws, I'd say they have fewer rights than poor people.

 

[Recury]

Originally posted by neon_duke
In fact, given the state of tax laws, I'd say they have fewer rights than poor people.

I give up, this is just sad...

 

[Duke]

Then demonstrate to me how rich people have more rights than poor people. Note that I said rights, not priveleges - I've already stipulated that rich people have the advantage there. If you are correct, it shouldn't be hard to do.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Recury
I give up, this is just sad...

Why?

 

[Recury]

Originally posted by Recury
I give up

 

[Danoff]

Then demonstrate to me how rich people have more rights than poor people. Note that I said rights, not priveleges - I've already stipulated that rich people have the advantage there. If you are correct, it shouldn't be hard to do.

Rich people have all the same rights as poor people under the constitution in every aspect except property. They have rights to a smaller portion of their earnings than poor people do, which would indicate that they have fewer rights.

This was brought about by poor and middle class people voting away the rights of the minority rich, which is not supposed to happen in any government, including a democracy.

 

[ledhed]

Poor rich people. I feel for them Sorry couldn't help it ..must be the wine..

 

[Danoff]

Poor rich people. I feel for them

You claim that I'm whining, but I'm not rich. I'm not complaining about my own taxes so much as I'm complaining about the taxes of the people in higher income tax brackets than mine.

I do feel for rich people. They produced more money for themselves than I did, that doesn't mean that they should pay for a larger portion of the services we all use. I think they get treated badly just because they're strong, and that's not right.

 

[ledhed]

Wine as in a fermented grape beverage..not whine..I thought the term poor rich people had a certain sense of irony and I was somewhat tilted...hence the effort to lighten up the subject a bit.

 

[Sage]

Yeah Dan, I think you misunderstood his intentions (though I can see how).

 

[Danoff]

Yeah Dan, I think you misunderstood his intentions

Ok, sorry about that ledhed. I thought your were making a pun.