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 →

[–]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)

I didn't put words in your mouth. When you say "less fortunate", or otherwise claim that fortune is the reason someone has more, then YOU are saying they didn't earn it.

Do you acknowledge that some people have more because they worked harder, sacrificed more, and earned it?

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

"When you say "less fortunate", or otherwise claim that fortune is the reason someone has more, then YOU are saying they didn't earn it."

No I don't. That is a false conclusion you drew so it would fit your argument. I largely don't care how worthy somebody is of having wealth. All I care is that he, being wealthier then others for whatever reason , would help others improve their well-being.

If he isn't going to share his wealth with the rest of society, what need does the society have for him? Why shouldn't the society simply expropriate everything? If he isn't serving his function in the society, if he doesn't want to be a part of it, if he doesn't want to share, if he os not part of the team WHY should the society provide him with security and protection???

Of you are not part of the group, you are an outsider, and if you are an outsider, what moral reason dors the society have not to simply take everything away from you???

[–]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.