|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
posted May 25, 2010 11:03 PM |
|
|
The fact that is was "invented" in the 19th century, and therefore is somewhat unadapted to the present world, doesn't help it either.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 25, 2010 11:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How about you pay 1 dollar less for your portion, get a little smaller portion, and send the 1 dollar to the starving family? You've lost nothing, but others gain...
That's how socialism (should) work(s).....
That is how CHARITY works, not socialism. A person voluntarily giving what is his to someone else.
Socialism on a national level is someone convincing the people that they are oppressed and that they deserve the property that others have. They then take it by force and the State redistributes the property/income as it wills. Socialism on a national level is tyrany. The State beaurocrat uses this manipulation in order to gain political power for himself.
The only way for socialism not to be tyrany is for a small group of people to voluntarily join together and share their goods and income. In a monastery for example.
But on a national level, the goods and income of those who are not socialists are stolen and redistributed.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 25, 2010 11:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Socialism on a national level is someone convincing the people that they are oppressed and that they deserve the property that others have. They then take it by force and the State redistributes the property/income as it wills. Socialism on a national level is tyrany. The State beaurocrat uses this manipulation in order to gain political power for himself.
Fact is that they ARE! What is your suggestion about the problem? How about oppression of women and rasism? Should people only volontarily have to be fair and just? We could let people work out their differences on their own, but there's lots of examples when that didn't work.
Politics are quite simple really. It's based on the fact that the world isn't fair, and that a lot (not nearly enough) people do things on their own. Yep, there's plenty of people that give to charity, but there's still starvation and snow, so it's clearly not enough. Every single system sucks or is (at least for now) impossible to build up, it's just that the alternatives are worse. Want an example? Dictatorship versus democrasy!
Democrasy depends on every (well, the majoraty at least) are well educated on the subjects of politics, sociologics, psychology and economics. Why? So that they can fully comprehend what every choice will do to the society. They also need to actually care about what happens to said society, and hacing sympathy for other people in it! Unless all that(I propably missed something) is true, the system is flawed. So should we just have dictatorship instead, just because democrasy sucks?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 12:02 AM |
|
|
Well, an immortal benevolent dictator is the best ruler. 
Unfortunately, they don't exist, so democracy with limited government is the next-best option.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 12:16 AM |
|
|
|
That was my point. Every system we have today is flawed. We'll just have to live with that and choose the least bad thing(I refuse to say the best).
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 09:02 AM |
|
|
Elodin wrote:
Quote:
They then take it by force and the State redistributes the property/income as it wills.
As I read it, it seems to be very much taxes you're describing there. I don't see how that's unique for socialism. Any state, to maintain its functions, needs power through money, and I sadly doubt there exist any country in the world where one chooses if they want to pay and be part of the system or not pay and not get the benefits.
The same goes with property and not only income. Both in the obvious way that you have to pay your profit eventhough you're on your property (on your land), so unless you give up your property and moves elsewhere you've to pay, not making it your property in principle. Also the way that the State in many, if not all countries, have laws that dictates if it's in common good for the nation, the state can take others property away from them, forcing them to accept any offer. We've seen this case earlier with people who wouldn't sell their property to companies, iIRC.
Anyway, I looked for the case and this is what I found:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/daniel-goldstein-last-atlantic-yards-holdout-leaves-for-3-million/
And yes it's in USA.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 09:23 AM |
|
|
I have no problem with paying taxes to support the necessary functions of a government, such as national defense.
But taxation to redistribute wealth is theft. If the government thinks I earn too much money and steals money from me to give to you, that is theft, not taxation. That is socialism.
Socialists think that you a right to my money and don't mind using politicians as a weapon to steal it from me. But that is absolutely no different from sticking a gun under my nose and demanding my wallet. Theft is theft.
Socialists say it is "economic justice" to steal from a person who makes more than someone else to give to the person who makes less. I say there is nothing "just" about theft.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 09:28 AM |
|
|
Elodin, taxation is theft anyway. People are forced to pay money for things they don't want.
(Not say that taxation is bad, though.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 09:29 AM |
|
|
It isn't theft.
You are living in a society that does it. If you do not consent to the societys rules you are free to leave.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 09:34 AM |
|
|
And go where? Every society has some form of taxation.
Also, the "love it or leave it" argument sounds rather right-wing. It was wrong when the cons used it under Bush and it's just as wrong when the left uses it now.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 10:28 AM |
|
|
So right-wing equals unrealistic then? I find it amusing that the US right would join what is close to legal natzi or facist parties in other countries, but that is just me.
Socialdemocraty with trade and money is not about redistrubiting wealth, it is all about getting out education and reasonable stuff like universal healthcare cheap and working to a population who would have paid more for a private solution.
Getting proper high education to the people, mantaining proper roads, and getting proper basics like healthcare and dental plan out to the people.
Redistrobuting wealth is to get money and give it too someone else. Must not be confused with eh?
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 10:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I have no problem with paying taxes to support the necessary functions of a government, such as national defense.
But taxation to redistribute wealth is theft. If the government thinks I earn too much money and steals money from me to give to you, that is theft, not taxation. That is socialism.
Socialists think that you a right to my money and don't mind using politicians as a weapon to steal it from me. But that is absolutely no different from sticking a gun under my nose and demanding my wallet. Theft is theft.
Socialists say it is "economic justice" to steal from a person who makes more than someone else to give to the person who makes less. I say there is nothing "just" about theft.
Incredible to read such lines from someone who calls himself a true Christian. I really think I am in a movie...this can't be reality.
You lost every little respect I still had for you and your attitude. You're nothing else but a pure egoist. But God will judge you for your attitude some day 
And I am pretty sure he doesn't share your point of view towards your "All is MINE!" attitude...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 11:17 AM |
|
|
For the record, I agree 100% with Elodin's last two posts. For a government to steal money from people and give it to others who are undeserving is thievery. There may be a few deserving people out there, but not very many. For the deserving there are other means to help them.
In the US, to give money to the undeserving is a failed policy of the Democrats used as a means to buy votes. There's a saying that applies here, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". Because of that, the Dems had millions of almost guaranteed votes. But those policies were such a failure that even the Dems eventually (somewhat) admitted they were a failure. Clinton was a Dem and he even ran on a policy to change that failed system.
That old failed system was partially changed and the results were good. It's amazing the results you get when you tell people that you're going to quit giving them money for free and they have to actually go out and work and make something of themselves. That's exactly what they did. When you remove the incentive for them to sit on their asses and smoke cigarettes and drink beer all day, and instead give them incentive to go out and work, then eventually the money runs out and they go out and work.
In other words, they didn't NEED the money, but when it was there just for the asking, they have no incentive whatsoever to go out and contribute to society, they are nothing but leeches. They take take take, and give nothing in return. It's not that most of them aren't capable of contributing, it's just that they are too damn lazy to.
That old system (and to a somewhat lesser degree the current system) did nothing but CREATE a low class of people, or give incentive for ones who are already lower class to remain there. It's a never-ending cycle, and it's a trap that oppresses the people. Some people have the notion that not giving them money is cold and cruel. It's the other way around. It's the giving of money to those who don't need it that is cruel and cold.
Over the last 15+ years since that old system was changed in the US, the change for the better has been very visible. When you stop paying people to not work, guess what? They go out and work. Or they go to college. They become more responsible contributors to society, not takers and leeches.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 11:57 AM |
|
|
 Is that really what you think? Wow! Just wow! I disagree with your opinions, but some of the things you stated are wrong.
You seem to think that poor people are poor because they sit in a lawn chair, drinking beer in a white and stained t-shirt. If that is your picture of the "low class", then you are not any better than a rasist in my eyes.
I have no numbers for the US, but in Sweden about 0.1 % of the ones living as "leeches" actually do it because they don't want to job and are too lasy to give a damn! The rest 99,9% are apparently people who are sick, can't find a job or and simply can't/get to work. Saying that those people don't deserve any money will kill them, and then we're just a short step away from the nazis. I mean, why not just kill them and cut out the middle man? It would open up some more houses, some more food and certainly reduce crime (since a lot of crimes are done by people who have no money) for the deserving people.
____________
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 12:12 PM |
|
|
They go to college and live with what exactly?
I'm not going to start an argument about your system that I have no idea how it works or worked. But I can say something from my perspective.
I've got no source of income except for the social security. I'm currently in "work training" or something along those lines. Meaning I work like anyone else but I don't get paid. I've been on the look for work since last december. NOT A SINGLE JOB. In six months. If it weren't for the money I get I'd be dead. No one's going to take me anymore since I can't make a long term deal. Going to univercity in the fall. While there I live with the social security money. For around 5 years. So that's 6 years others are paying me to live. After that I hopefully get a job. Work for the next 40 years. I think that's a fair deal. Pay for someone to stay alive who in turn pays for others for 40 years after that. Seems like good investment to me.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 03:11 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:13, 26 May 2010.
|
Quote:
You seem to think that poor people are poor because they sit in a lawn chair, drinking beer in a white and stained t-shirt. If that is your picture of the "low class", then you are not any better than a rasist in my eyes.
I think you completely missed the point of what Bin wrote.
Have you ever heard the proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
The point is that just giving money to people doesn't solve in problems. In fact, it makes problems worse. It creates a culture of dependency that doesn't lead to improvement; at best it leads to perpetuation of the status quo. There is a right way and a wrong way to help out the poor. Issuance of monthly welfare checks is the wrong way.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 03:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Have you ever heard the proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
And that would work out perfectly if every one could learn to fish. What if you don't have a fishing rod at the moment (i.e. being ill or something) or lack arms to hold the absent fishing rod with? Or the fact that it costs money to actually teach someone to fish?
Maybe you've heard the proverb: Make a man a fire and you'll keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for a lifetime.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 03:23 PM |
|
|
I, too, have to say that I find your post incredible, Binabik (not to mention Elodin's).
People are not BORN as workers, managers ur unemployed. The system doesn't offer anyone equal chances to start with, and if you are born poor, live in a bad neighborhood and go into a school located in a social hot spot, chances are that a higher percentage of people will fail to "become a valuable member of society" than if you are born in some middle class suburb.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 03:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And that would work out perfectly if every one could learn to fish. What if you don't have a fishing rod at the moment (i.e. being ill or something) or lack arms to hold the absent fishing rod with? Or the fact that it costs money to actually teach someone to fish?
Ah, I see, so there's no poor person who's capable of learning to fish? All poor people have no arms? Please - we're talking general solutions.
And: of course it costs money to teach people to fish. It also costs money to just write them welfare checks. The point is that education is an investment in society; welfare is flushing money down the toilet.
Quote:
Maybe you've heard the proverb: Make a man a fire and you'll keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for a lifetime.
So teaching a person to fish is like setting them on fire? 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 03:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You lost every little respect I still had for you and your attitude. You're nothing else but a pure egoist. But God will judge you for your attitude some day
And I am pretty sure he doesn't share your point of view towards your "All is MINE!" attitude...
Thanks for the insults Mr Moderator.
Yes, I really think I am the only one entitled to my money. Like I said in previous posts, I believe in charity. Me voluntarily giving to and helpilng others. I don't believe in you stealing from me with a gun or with a politician. If you are in need it is my choice to help you or not to help you.
You seem to be ignorant of the teachings of Jesus. Nowhere did he say that the government should take money from me and give the money to you. The Bible teaches CHARITY. Me of my own free will giving to and helping others as I will.
The Bible teaches the private ownership of property. One of the Ten Commandments is "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL." What is mine is mine. What is yours is yours.
The Bible also teaches that free loaders who chose not to work should not be supported by the community.
Quote:
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
Sure, those who can't work should be supported by the CHARITY of the community.
Oh, yeah, you may recall me in a previous post saying I GAVE over half my income to CHARITY. I doubt you can name one socialist in America who touts redistribution of wealth who did the same. How about you? Did you give the majority of your income to charitable causes? Or do you really keep more than you need and not pass on what you don't need? I can say of all the big name socialists that I know of that they are hypocrits. I already mentioned Obama's income and Gore buying yet another mansion (9 millino dollar mansion!)
My money is mine to give or to keep. It is not yours to take.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
