|
| Thread: Monetary Moral |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 28, 2008 10:27 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Me neither. Which is why the discussion is basically over at that point.
No, it's not, because while the government can have a few beneficial interventions beyond that of police and military (such as education, roads, some role in health care, regulation that improves information, some unemployment benefits), others (minimum wage, price floors and ceilings in general, tariffs, socialized medicine, extensive welfare benefits) are excessive.
That's not what this thread is about, since what you say is a contradisction to Ziel.
Moreover, why would army and police be tax-driven? Why not make them private as well?
Quote:
Quote:
Which is why I call Ziel's opinion a fascist one and a sure recipe into a poice state, since he advocates the same.
But that's not what he's advocating, because fascists were basically undemocratic social democrats. Their government certainly extended beyond the military and police.
I'm sorry, but that is WRONG. There was no socialism involved. Capitalism was left intact and thrived under the NSDAP. Or what do you think why a monster like the IG Farben could develop (the IG Farben were what was shattered into BASF, Bayer and Hoechst after WW2)
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 10:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Did you go to a public school? Yes or no?
Yes.
You can be sure that if in case of choosing private school there would be no school tax charging anymore, much better choice would be private school because it would be even cheaper 
Let's leave aside the obvious problem that a private school may teach anything it wants - it might be financed by god knows whom, so you might go to a private school rather cheaply - but become indoctrinated by some religious nutcases, for example.
Let's leave that aside.
Private schooling in capitalism would follow a certain pattern rather obviously: the better the school the more expensive it is (and since there ARE private schools that prove it, this is a fact). But what would that mean? It would mean that the quality of education of a child would depend on the thickness of the purse of its parents, something which generations of people have fought against, since it means that the poorer the parents of a child the poorer its education.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 11:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Moreover, why would army and police be tax-driven? Why not make them private as well?
Because, unlike other businesses, they specialize in the initiation of force. That's their job. So a powerful security company wouldn't need to protect people - it could just extract the money though threats of force. And the citizenry could do nothing about it except to form militias - whereas with a government, there is civilian control over security.
And socialism =/= social democracy. Nazi Germany had extensive government intervention in the economy, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 11:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Follow a certain pattern rather obviously: the better the school the more expensive it is (and since there ARE private schools that prove it, this is a fact). But what would that mean? It would mean that the quality of education of a child would depend on the thickness of the purse of its parents, something which generations of people have fought against, since it means that the poorer the parents of a child the poorer its education.
Of course you're right.
Let's say I work somewhere and by my earnings I can buy two watermelons. But one day I start to work harder and better, so my pension is growing bigger and I can buy even four watermelons. That is how economic works. Guy which is working better should be able to buy more than the one which is working not so good.
Same thing with kids.
If I'm going to have a child I should be sure that I can provide it anything that is necessary. If I can't then I shouldn't have sex to make my wife pregnant because it is not responsible.
If there is a poor kid - I am not guilty but parents are, and it's parents who should do something, not me.
And btw - isn't your example how it works now? I mean more money = possibility for better school?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 11:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Moreover, why would army and police be tax-driven? Why not make them private as well?
Because, unlike other businesses, they specialize in the initiation of force. That's their job. So a powerful security company wouldn't need to protect people - it could just extract the money though threats of force. And the citizenry could do nothing about it except to form militias - whereas with a government, there is civilian control over security.
And socialism =/= social democracy. Nazi Germany had extensive government intervention in the economy, though.
Not the way you want to make it sound. Capitalism was never touched. Workers didn't get benefits. Labor unions were non existent.
In fact, capitalism THRIVED under the NSDAP, since while the common people had to do whatever GERMANY demanded from them, corporations were PAID and paid well.
No, sorry. The NSDAP was neither socialist nor social democrat. Simply forget it or try to read a bit on it.
Now, your points about private security forces are not valid. In fact, since every corp would have its police force, if you were working for one you'd be protected by one. If you worked for GM, for example, the GM Worker Guard would protect you as the police is protecting you now - even against the Worker Guard of Ford.
On the other hand you are desregading the importance of things like education and health care - if THOSE are controlled by one or a few private corporations, they could threaten with frce as well, obviously - which is true for the waste cleaners as well, mind you.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 11:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Follow a certain pattern rather obviously: the better the school the more expensive it is (and since there ARE private schools that prove it, this is a fact). But what would that mean? It would mean that the quality of education of a child would depend on the thickness of the purse of its parents, something which generations of people have fought against, since it means that the poorer the parents of a child the poorer its education.
Of course you're right.
Let's say I work somewhere and by my earnings I can buy two watermelons. But one day I start to work harder and better, so my pension is growing bigger and I can buy even four watermelons.
Same thing with kids.
If I'm going to have a child I should be sure that I can provide it anything that is necessary. If I can't then I shouldn't have sex to make my wife pregnant because it is not responsible.
And btw - isn't your example how it works now? I mean more money = possibility for better school?
No, it's ALOT of money = better school and not a lot of money the school depending on your neighborhood. The trouble at this points is, that not enough money is put into schooling and that in big towns too poor neighborhood exist.
For your first point, a child is no melon. A child shouldn't suffer just because their parents are poor - it should have a decent educational chance.
Don't you agree?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 11:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In fact, capitalism THRIVED under the NSDAP, since while the common people had to do whatever GERMANY demanded from them, corporations were PAID and paid well.
That's not capitalism. That's corporate socialism.
Quote:
In fact, since every corp would have its police force, if you were working for one you'd be protected by one. If you worked for GM, for example, the GM Worker Guard would protect you as the police is protecting you now - even against the Worker Guard of Ford.
That wouldn't be very efficient for every company to have its own Worker Guard. It'd be much cheaper for both of them to buy protection from a General Guard.
Quote:
On the other hand you are desregading the importance of things like education and health care - if THOSE are controlled by one or a few private corporations, they could threaten with frce as well
Education, threaten me with force? What are they going to do - throw books at me?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 11:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For your first point, a child is no melon. A child shouldn't suffer just because their parents are poor - it should have a decent educational chance.
Don't you agree?
I don't agree.
Who is responsible for my children - me, you or whole country? World is not decent, there are better and worst people and any socialist couldn't hide it. As rich as I am as better live would my child have.
About army: of course it could be private, even less money would it consume. The problem is that it would require monthly cash anyway and this form is very close to taxes, so close that there is almost no diffrence 
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 11:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, capitalism THRIVED under the NSDAP, since while the common people had to do whatever GERMANY demanded from them, corporations were PAID and paid well.
That's not capitalism. That's corporate socialism.
Nah. It's wartime capitalism. There is no significant difference in the economic structures of 1942 Germany, US or Britain. Russia was different, though.
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, since every corp would have its police force, if you were working for one you'd be protected by one. If you worked for GM, for example, the GM Worker Guard would protect you as the police is protecting you now - even against the Worker Guard of Ford.
That wouldn't be very efficient for every company to have its own Worker Guard. It'd be much cheaper for both of them to buy protection from a General Guard.
That doesn't make any difference for the sake of this argument. It's still a private company.
Quote:
Quote:
On the other hand you are desregading the importance of things like education and health care - if THOSE are controlled by one or a few private corporations, they could threaten with frce as well
Education, threaten me with force? What are they going to do - throw books at me?
Stop teaching or teaching less. Expelling children. Giving bad grades. Whatever. A form of extortion.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 11:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who is responsible for my children - me, you or whole country? World is not decent, there are better and worst people and any socialist couldn't hide it. As rich as I am as better live would my child have.
What about orphans? No one is responsible for them?
Quote:
About army: of course it could be private, even less money would it consume. The problem is that it would require monthly cash anyway and this form is very close to taxes, so close that there is almost no diffrence
Only that citizens who don't want won't pay for it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 29, 2008 12:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Nah. It's wartime capitalism. There is no significant difference in the economic structures of 1942 Germany, US or Britain. Russia was different, though.
Germany started that program earlier, though. And call it whatever you want, it's still the same thing. Regardless, it's not what I support.
Quote:
That doesn't make any difference for the sake of this argument. It's still a private company.
How it actually works does make a difference.
Quote:
Stop teaching or teaching less. Expelling children. Giving bad grades. Whatever. A form of extortion.
None of those are an initiation of force. The most they could be is a breach of contract.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 29, 2008 12:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nah. It's wartime capitalism. There is no significant difference in the economic structures of 1942 Germany, US or Britain. Russia was different, though.
Germany started that program earlier, though.
You call that a point?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 29, 2008 01:25 AM |
|
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted December 29, 2008 08:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, gold burns really well. 
Every metal CAN burn
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 29, 2008 08:11 AM |
|
|
No. I'm simply calling the hot air you use instead of them.
I made points, TheDeath made points, and you have none.
Specifically not in this thread.
In this thread, if I may remind you again, Ziel is claiming, a country would need taxes only for an army and police, and people who'd be forced to pay taxes for anything else would be robbed and their freedom inhibited.
You don't support this, so, as I said, the discussion concerning this thread is over. That you may have a different view on how much taxes should be given to whom is a completely different question.
For this thread, Ziel's claim that a country would need an army and a police only to survive, is a claim he doesn't back with anything. History is not backing it, either. Moreover, countries are a very specific form of society that in itself don't have to survive. Ultimately countries can disappear, what matters are only the people and their society.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 29, 2008 10:51 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 10:53, 29 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
For your first point, a child is no melon. A child shouldn't suffer just because their parents are poor - it should have a decent educational chance.
Don't you agree?
I don't agree.
Who is responsible for my children - me, you or whole country? World is not decent, there are better and worst people and any socialist couldn't hide it. As rich as I am as better live would my child have.
I am for sure no socialists, even though Mvass wants me to put as far left as possible. For my understanding, every extreme position is bad...be it right or left. But I hardly can name anyone MORE right winged than you are. It is horrible for me to read your lines...You sound so extremely egoistic...I even don't know if you are joking or if you REALLY feel the way you type here.
Imagine: (only fiction!!)
Let's see what happens when you will lose your job because your boss is an A** and only wants women working for his company. Some weeks after you lost your job, doctors tell you, you have a tumor and have to stay in hospital. You would need very expansive medicine, but your private health care insurance quit your contract because of the loss of your job. You need to loan money to pay your bills. Your wife needs to get a second job to be able to pay all the monthly bills. You have to take your children from private school cause you can't afford it anymore. I want go any further....the direction of your life is clear now....
And why this? Only because an insurance company is allowed to quit a contract with you because they won't make any profit with it anymore. Insurances can ruin life.
I call myself a social democrat (when looking at the graphics Mvass posted), which means, free market isn't a bad thing, but there have to be some kind of control mechanisms, and also a few parts of life shouldn't be controlled by profit seeking managers. These are at least health care and education. Of course I have a problem with the hugh oil prices. Makes life much more complicated. But that's free market. If poeple can't afford big muscle cars anymore, the engineers have to think about a different way to drive a car, be it gas, hydrogen, electricity, whatever. But this only happens because they are forced to do that, otherwise they won't sell enough cars to make their profit. But this is different to health care. No one has a choice of being ill or not. No one has a choice if getting hit by a car and being in need of a surgery. No one has the choice which tumor he wants. So a hospital will ALWAYS have "customers", no matter what.
If everyone only looks after his own rights, and doesn't have an eye for his neighbours, world will go down for sure. A world of egoists won't exist very long. In a community, you have rights AND duties. Extreme capitalists most often forget about the duties.
Just look how the current financial crises started and why it happened...
There won't be sunshine all the time in your life. So make sure your life is backed up and your friends will be there when you're in a tale..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 29, 2008 11:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Imagine: (only fiction!!)
Let's see what happens when you will lose your job because your boss is an A** and only wants women working for his company. Some weeks after you lost your job, doctors tell you, you have a tumor and have to stay in hospital. You would need very expansive medicine, but your private health care insurance quit your contract because of the loss of your job. You need to loan money to pay your bills. Your wife needs to get a second job to be able to pay all the monthly bills. You have to take your children from private school cause you can't afford it anymore. I want go any further....the direction of your life is clear now....
And why this? Only because an insurance company is allowed to quit a contract with you because they won't make any profit with it anymore. Insurances can ruin life.
If I would store saved money somewhere else - I would have a lot. Imagine that instead of paying all of these horrible taxes you are paying it to your bank account.
Anyway the choice should be yours - if you don't want to participate in social medical care and did not saved enough money you can blame only yourself. But you should be able to choose. As I already wrote - If you want to be socially protected then go on, but don't make me to follow you .
And about quitting a contract - you should find better insurance company then. One of basic capitalism laws tells that if something is needed there will always be a ugly capitalist that would start a buisiness and provide it
Quote:
If everyone only looks after his own rights, and doesn't have an eye for his neighbours, world will go down for sure. A world of egoists won't exist very long. In a community, you have rights AND duties. Extreme capitalists most often forget about the duties.
Just look how the current financial crises started and why it happened...
I'm sure I would help my neighbour if he would ask me to. But I do not want situation where he puts a gun aside and demand the help (as in current system).
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 29, 2008 12:13 PM |
|
|
You simply do not understand the problems that come with maintaining a society.
I think we can safely agree that a society can only survive when there are children. Now let's take Health Care which is organized as an insurance.
If you view a single person that has work, there is nothing wrong with a private Health Insurance provided by an independently and privately operating company.
However, now take a look at the whole pyramid:
4 persons (2 pairs) being 70 years old, each pair having 2 kids;
those 4 kids being 40 years old (being married with each other for simplicity) having 2 kids each as well;
4 kids being 10 years old.
Now, out of those 12 persons, how many are actually working? How many should work? Where comes the money from the not-working persons life off? Who pays the private health care insurance for those 12 persons from which money?
If you try now an explanation that involves saving the saved taxes for it, it won't work because of inflation. Checking the price development will show you, that no amount of private tax saving for old age will allow you to actually have enough money.
For example, I'm earning now easily double as much money for the same work than 20 years ago, and prices for most things have at least doubled as well, since then. And I live in a very stable country with quite high salaries.
So. Now what in your world?
I'll tell you, what: the richer you are, the more children you can sire (this is of course only true for the rich MEN, since BEARING children your whole life seems to be a doubtful pleasure at best), since only rich people can afford children. Which simply means, the richer you are, the more women you can have in your harem bearing your children. You must allow men having more than one women, because otherwise there won't be enough to guarantee the survival of society. The poorer guys must share the rest of the women one way or another. Of course this somehow is pretty awkward for the women as well, but hey, what are they going to do, if they want a child, but no one will pay them for their last few months of pregnancy and afterwards nor for the first months after the birth, even if they are willing to work?
Now, does that ring a bell somehow, like in, isn't that so in a couple of countries already?
And don't even start arguing: If everything is private and children have to be brought up completely in private then this is the only logical solution that guarantees the survival of society: the richer a person, the more children they can afford and HAVE to afford because otherwise things go down the drain.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 29, 2008 01:00 PM |
|
|
What you say is mostly true, JJ, still, don't you think that tax for pensions is pointless? Why do we need government to manage our pensions? Why can't we do it alone? In the end, it would be good for both us and the government. Because they could get rid of all that bureaucratic structures they need for pension management, and we (at least in Poland) would get thrice as much as we do now.
And it doesn't upset the balance you mention. Simply because it's the same thing, only that WE manage the cash for our retirement ourselves.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
| |
|
|
