you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 children)

"here are no limits set in your system" There is: if you take too much the business will go bankrupt. That benefits nobody.

"everyone knows that if the government has the power to take everything then they will take everything" I don't "know" that. That is just libertarian bullshit.

"All businesses provide a benefit or they go out of buisness." If by benefit you mean somebody wants them then yes. This is not how I define "benefit". A drug dealer is a beneficial business by your definition. I say that the community has the right to decide whether a particular business is beneficial and therefor has the right to exist. If it benefits a minority at the expense of the majority then it should cease existing.

Of cause we should control business. Without tight government control, private enterprise is just a merciless money-making machine that stops at nothing to increase its profit. May I remind you that social media giants are businesses and require VERY tight government control.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

if you take too much the business will go bankrupt.

That is not a limit so much as the inevitable conclusion. A limit would be something like a constitution protecting the rights of buisness owners and limiting the amount the government can take.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

Of cause you need that. Nobody says that the government should be able to come and take your property... just tax you out of existence if it deems so necessary.

As long as business has no say in politics, pays its taxes and adheres to government policies it should be left to its own devices.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

Property and buisness rights are inherently in conflict with socialist and communist principles. At that point the conversation isn't about what form our economy should take, but how much welfare should the state be providing.

And if that is the conversation you are trying to have then don't start a conversation about socialism, because it isn't relevant.

The only apparent difference in what we have and what you want is the amout of welfare and wealth redistribution.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

"The only apparent difference in what we have and what you want is the amount of welfare and wealth redistribution." Of cause. Welfare is key. How the wealth is created is irrelevant. Free healthcare, free (yet meritocratic) education, accessible housing, high quality (preferably free) public transport. What is the point in supporting the state if it doesn't support you back as best it can?

I am not sure what you were trying to say in your first paragraph. Are you saying that what I want isn't socialism but some form of capitalism? In which case, I really don't care how someone calls it - I care about the substance. What would you call it?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Why do you call it free when it isn't free? If it were free literally no one would object. The entire controversy revolves around forcing one person to pay for (and in essence work in servitude for-slavery-) the benefit of someone else. This is wrong. It is evil. Setting up an evil system with the excuse that you do it with good intentions is delusional.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

"Why do you call it free when it isn't free?" I am not paying for it therefor it is free for me. The people who are paying for it are those who can afford to (at least that is how it should be). A rich person isn't going to starve if you tax him so there is nothing immoral in making him share his wealth with those who need it more. A rich person is a part of the society. A society that has allowed him to get rich. He owes that society for that. Marxists-Leninists would say that we ought to take away all his riches and redistribute them equally. I am more liberal in this regard. I say that as long as the richer people do their duty and support the poorer ones by paying taxes, they should be allowed to keep their wealth as a "reward" for having generated it. Everyone must do their duty for the good of the society as best they can. The poorer ones do their duty by working and the richer do their duty by by managing wealth production and paying taxes.

"forcing one person to pay for the benefit of someone else" If this someone else needs it more, it is our duty to make the rich person share instead of hoarding his wealth for his greedy self.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I am not paying for it therefor it is free for me.

But it is not free and you are deluding yourself by using that language. How can you have an honest opinion if you are deluding yourself?

You need to come to grips with the fact that what you want is for someone else to take care of you the way your parents did when you were a kid. And you need to realize that what that means is that someone else is working harder than you to provide for you. It is inherently unjust. You are trying to justify it with claims that the money is coming from those who magically have it but don't work for it. That is a lie of convenience.

The reality is that rich people avoid taxes and the burden of taking care of you is foisted on people whos lives are significantly diminished because of the taxes they already pay let alone the massive tax hikes it would take to foster you. Which, by the way, would dwarf the benefit you could ever see because of the horrible inefficiency of government.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

But it is not free and you are deluding yourself by using that language.

You are the one deluding yourself. Free is something you don't pay for. There is no other definition.

"working harder" Or is perhaps lucky. Regardless, we are all part of the same society and must provide for the less lucky. Those who want to hoard the wealth for themselves with delusional thoughts that they earned it themselves should to jail and lose their ill-gotten gains.

"The reality is that rich people avoid taxes" As I said, the US has a terrible taxation system. That is not an excuse to stop taxing at all. I would primarily tax corporations - not private individuals.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You are the one deluding yourself.

Please explain how I am deluding myself because it sounds like your only argument here is "I'm rubber, you're glue".

When has anyone besides a thief used the word free to describe the stolen goods? Certainly the thief didn't pay for them. Why are they not free?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

"working harder" Or is perhaps lucky.

Prove that it's luck and not hard work then you can claim it's luck and not hard work. Until then your claims are bullshit.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Regardless, we are all part of the same society and must provide for the less lucky.

What about the more lazy? Should the hard working be forced to provide for the lazy?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A rich person isn't going to starve if you tax him so there is nothing immoral in making him share his wealth with those who need it more.

Nonone is starving. Not in America. Not of poverty. So has your greed skewed your moral compas so much that you think it is ok to take everything away from someone who sacrificed all thier free time working hard to make something of themselves and give it to the most lazy person so they can have all the same things?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am not from north america, but even then not everyone is eating healthy where you live. You have terrible urban environment, very unequal education, NO FREE HEALTHCARE!!!!. In the 21 century it is ridiculous. As long as some person doesn't have access to free healthcare you should bleed the greedy bastards with taxes.

"make something of themselves" The society allowed that him to grow wealthy. No it is time for him to repay his debt.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

A society that has allowed him to get rich.

You live in that same society, so why aren't you rich? Maybe because he worked his ass off as a kid to get good grades. Maybe because his parents forced him to sacrifice his childhood to become successful. Now you have the audacity to claim he didn't work for it, rather society gave it to him. Based on what? Based on the fact that this story is convenient or you. But clearly a lie, as clearly everyone in society is not rich.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If it wasn't for the society, he would be in Savannah chasing his week's meal. If it wasn't for the society, anybody with a bigger stick would be able to take everything away from him. We are social creatures. We live in a civilization without which we would be nothing more than hairless apes walking on back legs.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Wrong. Without society some of us would have the rest of you as slaves. Without society those who's achievements you diminish with these baseless claims would be the apex predators.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

it is our duty to make the rich person share instead of hoarding his wealth for his greedy self.

You want to steal someone else's hard earned money and you call them greedy.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Stealing is taking in secret something that doesn't belong to me. Until the wealth has been taxes it isn't yours. The society (represented by the state) takes the share it deems fair in the form of taxation, and lets you keep the part that is now yours. Feel free to do with it what you want.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What is the point in supporting the state if it doesn't support you back as best it can?

Not providing all your wants (spare me the "hur der they are needs") does not mean the state does nothing for you. That is a completely disingenuous argument.

It's the fact that the government always provides a very poor value for the money that is taken which makes for the most compelling argument to limit government as much as possible, not to expand it with infinite welfare programs.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Not providing all your wants" My state provides me with most of what I believe is my birthright. It could be of higher quality and that is worth trying to achieve, but at least it is something.

"It's the fact that the government always provides a very poor value for the money that is taken which makes for the most compelling argument to limit government as much as possible, not to expand it with infinite welfare programs." That is the most ridiculous argument I have heard. If the state is inefficient at helping people then we shouldn't help people at all? If you were in need, would you rather you were helped inefficiently or not helped at all? The whole point of having a government is to redistribute wealth. Tax the rich, support the poor. It is its primary function, this and law enforcement. Besides, a lot of inefficiencies can be easily removed with better planning.

"very poor value for the money" If you know a better way of redistributing money to the needy I would be glad to hear it.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

what I believe is my birthright.

Your birthright is that which your father provides you, and citizenship. That's it.

If the state is inefficient at helping people then we shouldn't help people at all?

That is not the alternative. There are many ways to help people without the states' involvement.

I think the reason people like you turn thier noses up to the alternatives (though I bet you don't realize it and will deny it) is that you have an unrealistic expectation of the states ability to solve problems and make poor people wealthy, healthy, and happy. Compared to that fantasy the alternatives don't hold a candle. But if you only took an unbiased look at what the results have been from all the welfare programs to date you would be devastated by how thoroughly they have all failed.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Your birthright is that which your father provides you, and citizenship. That's it." Sincerely disagree with that. I was born into the society and it owes me as much as I owe it. A society that owes me nothing is a society that I will not be part of.

First, I don't turn my nose away from private initiatives (charities?). I am all for them as long as they are in addition to and not instead of the state programs. You see, a charity is just that: a charity. It can help you but it forces you to rely on other people's kindness. That is degrading. If I am in need I the help is my right. I shouldn't come begging to some charity. I should be able come proud banging my fist on the table. I am a member of the society and I am in need - it should be the state's duty to help me.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What would you call it?

It is literally the system that we have. We have capitalism, and we have tax funded welfare programs. I have heard it called a mixed economy, but there is nothing that defines capitalism which prohibits welfare programs. Free market anarco capitalism would be anti welfare of any kind. But that is not what most people who want capitalism are after. They simply want as much freedom and autonomy as possible, with state run institutions where they make sense.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"They simply want as much freedom and autonomy as possible" I am not sure that is what I want. Freedom is good, but too much freedom in wrong areas may lead to chaos and social anarchy. That is not what I want.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"As possible"

I agree that anarchy is bad.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We agree on something. I guess now we only need to agree how much freedom and where is too much.