you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (41 children)

but the government should make sure that they are producing as much taxes as possible

So basically take all the money and redistribute it. 🙄🤭 How is that NOT the government owning the buisness?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (40 children)

Because it isn't taking ALL the profit. Just as much as it can get away with while still making the business a valuable asset for its owner. Let me clarify if: I was probably a bit too harsh. A business can provide benefit for a society in multiple ways. Taxes is the most obvious one but others include providing jobs, providing necessary services that a government is unable to effectively provide, etc. The point is: business should exist for the benefit of the society, not the other way round. If the business is not socially valuable in any other way, then at least it should be milked for taxes. Just because somebody is making a profit doesn't mean the business is socially valuable.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

It is so vague and subjective that all your claims are lies. You have no grounds to claim "its not all profit". There are no limits set in your system, and everyone knows that if the government has the power to take everything then they will take everything.

All businesses provide a benefit or they go out of buisness. But what leftists want is to have control over buisness on the pretext that they are serving the community when they are just being tyrants. Just like all the social media giants censor ideas they don't like on claims of hate speech, and community guidelines violations.

[–]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 -  (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 -  (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.