Lochness Socialism?

[petrus4]

As another point, I will openly admit that I dislike threads like this one, because they don't really accomplish anything other than to cause the usual suspects around here, to experience a sense of smug self-justification, when I don't believe that there is any truly rational basis for them to do so.

The fact is that whichever way you slice it, logistical inequality is not a good thing for any society.  You can talk about raising yourself up by your own bootstraps or Atlas shrugging as much as you want; but the way things are going, the supposedly self-reliant demographic in Western society, only have gated communities to look forward to, and not even a foot outside of said gated communities, will be something akin to Hell.



Notice also how different this video is from the one in the OP.  The tone isn't derisive or condescending; Richard Wilkinson is polite, even friendly.  He also mainly just lists scientific data.

Money is also only as good as the things it will buy.  If the disciples of Ayn Rand continue trashing the environment, there isn't going to be any more stuffed lobster and creme brulee even for those who can afford it, because lobsters, cows, and vanilla plants will be extinct.

[undo11]

Right psychologically need both war and the Zero Sum Game. 

??

[undo11]

As another point, I will openly admit that I dislike threads like this one, because they don't really accomplish anything other than to cause the usual suspects around here, to experience a sense of smug self-justification, when I don't believe that there is any truly rational basis for them to do so.

The fact is that whichever way you slice it, logistical inequality is not a good thing for any society.  You can talk about raising yourself up by your own bootstraps or Atlas shrugging as much as you want; but the way things are going, the supposedly self-reliant demographic in Western society, only have gated communities to look forward to

that's assuming anybody who doesn't believe socialism's approach is good, is therefore rich.  personally, i enjoy helping people who need help, if i have it to give, but i can't presume that my neighbor must therefore match my contributions.  it's just theft, at gun point. 

[undo11]

?

[zorgon]

Also...I wonder if there are more in power that just are intent to use other
peoples money, whatever they are labeled?

And what is wrong with using other peoples money exactly?

Perhaps if we all learned just HOW that works  we would all be richer?

[undo11]

And what is wrong with using other peoples money exactly?

Perhaps if we all learned just HOW that works  we would all be richer?

other's people's money is not YOUR money. it's theirs. like your house is yours, not mine. 
that's why when you borrow other people's money, you are expected to pay it back (oftentimes with interest so that they benefit from the transaction), unless they give it to you or loan it to you, how could you be using it legally or even ethically?

[Pimander]

that's assuming anybody who doesn't believe socialism's approach is good, is therefore rich.  personally, i enjoy helping people who need help, if i have it to give, but i can't presume that my neighbor must therefore match my contributions.  it's just theft, at gun point.

But if anybody already has more than their share of the worlds wealth then it could be argued that the crime has already taken place.

Those people with an unfair share of wealth would include the whole of middle class America and Middle class Western Europeans.  It is right wing Nationalistic blindness that makes people believe that it is fair that they are so well off.  It seems fair only because folks do not see beyond their system that teaches (and enshrines in law) that if you have that wealth legally then it is morally OK.  Perhaps it is but I would not fancy my chances trying to convince the majority of the worlds poverty stricken population that it is fair or moral that overweight Americans, Brits and Germans can drive around in their overweight cars while children die from starvation.

Obviously a system should reward the innovative and hard working with a better standard of living than people who refuse to contribute (don't forget some people can't due to economic circumstances meaning jobs are hard to come by).  A fair and moral system starts by dividing resources so that the poorest have enough.  If there is any resources left then competition for the extra resources is fair game in my view.  But you have to start by offering a baseline share of wealth to every family or person if you want a fair society.

The current global economic system does not allow this and needs to be reformed dramatically or replaced with one that can - democratically if possible.  That is my kind of revolution.

[undo11]

But if you already have more than your share of the worlds wealth then the theft has already taken place.

depends.  if your "share" came about as a result of stealing it from others, then yes, you're right.   but if it came about from hard work, innovation, or the hard work and innovation of your predecessors, that's hardly a crime against humanity.

americans have been supporting charities all over the world, for years now, and most of the money is absorbed by the people working in the offices, so they have a job commensurate with their educations.

another portion is absorbed by thieves in the countries where the people are suffering, such as the issues in places in africa where the UN has refused to send in help, in the past, even after the funds had been raised via charitable donations, because the workers were slaughtered and the stuff stolen by the drug lords who live there and keep the people poor.  then that is blamed on the average american white person.  you can't make this stuff up. 

we americans, particularly white americans, all have big flashing targets on us, for 1) trying to make the plight of the poor better via charity, rather than via forced taxation, (i mean how's that gonna look in the news? people being kind to total strangers, just out of the goodness of their hearts and the whole thing is stolen by drug lords and then blamed on white americans - greedy capitalists can't also be charitable capitalists, apparently -- nothign good has come from capitalism, blah blah blah), 2) trying to make the plight of humanity in general, better and 3) for daring to think it could be done honestly, and without ulterior motive other than making oneself and the world a better place.

watch this

[undo11]

oh you did an edit

Obviously a system should reward the innovative and hard working with a better standard of living than people who refuse to contribute (don't forget some people can't due to economic circumstances meaning jobs are hard to come by).  A fair and moral system starts by dividing resources so that the poorest have enough.

listen you're preaching to the choir, but the system is set up to take your money and redistribute it in such small amounts to the impoverished, that the plight of the poor never manages to improve.

the system absorbs the bulk of it, upfront, then redistributes a pittance to the poor, so the poor can be counted on to blame the whole thing on the people who are paying the money, rather than the system, which steals most of it, first, and then redistributes a tiny remainder to the poor.  keeping the poor artificially poor and reliant on handouts, is how they keep votes coming in, and also how to prepare an army of people willing to blame their impoverishment on the very people who did help them - et al the taxpayers and charitable donations.

i don't agree with taxation because it steals the money of other people.  i'm willing to pay it, because i'm capable of doing so.  but i don't presume i have the right to force you to pay it if you don't want to.  it's unethical, it's immoral, to force an unwilling participant to pay for something that is neither their fault, nor their responsibility, unless they want to, out of the kindness of their hearts.

[Pimander]

depends.  if your "share" came about as a result of stealing it from others, then yes, you're right.   but if it came about from hard work, innovation, or the hard work and innovation of your predecessors, that's hardly a crime against humanity.

Well yes and no.  Yes it is fair that people are rewarded for their work.  But if it is impossible for others to ever get out of poverty because of inequalities that existed before we were born then that is still not fair.  In an extreme example, I don't care how the British Royal Family got their land (fairly or not) there are many without any land and we want our share.  MY ancestors might have worked harder than someone else but that does not mean I should always be wealthy at their expense.

americans have been supporting charities all over the world, for years now, and most of the money is absorbed by the people working in the offices, so they have a job commensurate with their educations.

Agreed.  It stinks.

I don't think though that the rich giving to charity should mean wealth should stay unfairly distributed.  The system needs to change to be fairer.  Charity may make people feel better but it is no solution.  Just giving some of your unfair share of the wealth back is not enough to make things fair.  If things were fair then there would not be any need to give to the poor.  Taxation is a fairer (as in everyone pays the same) way to distribute some of the money of those who have an unfair proportion of resources.

I believe in a tax system which is progressive rather than regressive.  That way only the very rich pay a lot and those who have little pay almost nothing.  After all, the poor can't afford to pay for services and the rich can.  Ultimately it is all about fairness to me.

I don't see many morally defensible arguments against my position.

[Sinny]

I agree with Pi,

A simple solution to a simple problem.

Did ever one ever read the story of Robin Hood?

Implimenting the solution may be far from simple, however.

All talks in between are irrelivent.

If you take the bar chart representing the worlds wealth and distribution, the problem is there for all to see, I suggest that chart should be adjusted to represent distribution that is morally and ethically correct. Plus, even the figures suggest we'll 'all' be 'well off' after said ajustment.

[undo11]

I agree with Pi,

A simple solution to a simple problem.

Did ever one ever read the story of Robin Hood?

Implimenting the solution may be far from simple, however.

All talks in between are irrelivent.

If you take the bar chart representing the worlds wealth and distribution, the problem is there for all to see, I suggest that chart should be adjusted to represent distribution that is morally and ethically correct. Plus, even the figures suggest we'll 'all' be 'well off' after said ajustment.

but that's not the plan.  the plan is to depopulate by blaming anybody that has anything that they worked to get, or inherited from family, that worked to get it.   it is not your fault that other countries on the planet, abuse their citizens.  it is the fault of their leaders.   how is some family, who is only surviving because the government allows them to have foodstamps, or allows them to keep enough of their money to pay their bills, at fault for abuses everywhere?  that's like crazy talk.

   it's not the fault of other people on the planet, that our governments are abusing their citizens, either, and for the same reason - you're only guilty for what you personally do, not what other people do.  any talk to the contrary is evidence of brainwashing 

[undo11]

that's worth watching

[undo11]

this is where we are heading if we don't stop blaming each other, for what governments of the world do, including our own. 

[burntheships]

And what is wrong with using other peoples money exactly?

Nothing, and agreed that in mutual transactions it can be beneficial
to both parties.

Perhaps if we all learned just HOW that works  we would all be richer?

Yes.

To clarify my original comment was specifically made concerning taxation,
in which I failed to use proper wording to get my point accross. What I was referring to by "those in power intent on using other peoples money" was the unjust taxation by governments.

i don't agree with taxation because it steals the money of other people.  i'm willing to pay it, because i'm capable of doing so.  but i don't presume i have the right to force you to pay it if you don't want to.  it's unethical, it's immoral, to force an unwilling participant to pay for something that is neither their fault, nor their responsibility, unless they want to, out of the kindness of their hearts.

Well said Undo!