Where are all the conservative socialists in the West?

submitted by IamCleaver from self.politics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 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 -  (26 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?

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

I don't see how it is relevant. A thief breaks tho society's rules.

[–]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.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't need to because I don't see how it is relevant. It could be one or the other or a mixture of both. The point is that I still believe that those who are better of owe it to those who are less fortunate.

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

The point is that I still believe that those who are better of owe it to those who are less fortunate.

You always spin it in way that implies those who have more didn't earn it. Why? Why can't you acknowledge that some people work arder than others?

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

You are putting words into my mouth. I don't care whether they "earned" it or not. They have more, therefore they can afford to share more and that is all I care about.

[–]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?

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

Depending on what you mean by "lazy" and "provide". I believe that food, shelter, basic education, security and healthcare are human rights that every citizen must have access to regardless of anything. If a person simply doesn't want to work then he should still be provided with food and a bed in a clean and safe environment. If your economy can afford it, then swap "bed" for "room". Healthcare includes psychiatric help and education includes helping someone find a job.

Other then that I say the society shouldn't needlessly waste resources on those who simply refuse to give back despite being able to.

A lot of things that a society should provide isn't direct support of individuals. We should be building fairer cities that can be navigated without a car. Mixed neighborhoods that prevent the growth of economic segregation, cheap, high quality public transport etc.

[–]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.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That is what every capitalist thinks until an angry mob reminds him of his true place with a pitchfork.

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

Mobs are just large groups of weak men. Weak men can only grow to those numbers in the safety and abundance of societies. Strong men build those societies. Weak men grow in them like a fungus, then destroy those societies.

It is a tragedy not a triumph.

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

To prevent all that from happening, we have welfare where the "strong" take care of the "weak" and try help them get stronger.

[–]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.