Can Communism Work? page 4

594 posts

Flag Post

Define ‘better’.

More security for individuals, I guess.

Where has 60% tax? And anyway, that would only be for the rich. Does it really do any harm for a person to be on 400K rather than 1million? That’s no injustice- but living under the poverty line while working a full-time job is.

The more we are forced to pay for those who choose not to work, the less they want to work and the harder we have to work.

What system are we talking about that allows people to just choose not to work? Systems that allow large inheritances and cushy jobs for family members? Celebrity cultures? It doesn’t sound anything like communism :/

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.

If someone can work, they’re expected to. If they can’t, they’re not. Where’s the moral outrage?

“You don’t work, you don’t eat” – not in reference to those who can’t work- the sick, etc- but in reference to the bourgeoise who choose not to.

Maybe society under Marxist theory would be less productive (it’s certainly not a given thing that it should be so, but it seems to be a central argument anyway)- but hell, most of the money at the moment goes to needless extravagance. I’ve said it before, on this forum I think, but I’d rather have all share a small pie equally than have the majority watch the few eat a big pie. I like the phrase :)

EDIT: Maybe I am a closet Commie :/ Seem to do a lot of defending it. I do have plenty of problems with communism, all utopian ideas really.

 
Flag Post

Off topic, but I found this article from 1951 interesting, as it shows this horrible sense of entitlement is not new. link

Almost none of these countries have sliding tax rates. There are exceptions but for most the income tax is 45-55% with a 15-20% VAT (similar to sales tax). One guy from Norway I think, told me that eating what is a $4 meal at McDonalds in the US, costs $40 there. I remember eating McDs in the airport in Lisbon and it being only slightly marked up, so I suppose there is some variance.

economic stagnation in Europe

Some countries do allow unemployment benefits indefinitely. There are other sources that you can find that show socialism causes lower productivity.

The problem with our concept of poverty is that it is not real abject poverty, like children in Africa living in a shack and drinking dirty water and a daily meal of rice if they are lucky. Things like this are a gross misinterpretation of libertarianism and of my plan:

I’d rather have all share a small pie equally than have the majority watch the few eat a big pie.

I wouldn’t call 50% of my wages and 20% of everything I buy a small piece of the pie. Most doctors used to give free health care to the poor, but government has caused them to stop. These huge tax rates can be equated to forced charity. My plan isn’t to just stop all welfare instantly and use the homeless for target practice. Revenue would gradually be directed away from government and into nonprofits. It is still socialist wealth redistribution, but the amount will slowly lessen and voluntary donations will have to pick up the slack.

Along with losing the waste from government bureaucracy, the needs of the poor can be met more sensibly. Almost all of those in the US who are below the poverty line are not truly destitute. The government opens the door for fraud and even encourages the existence of jobs like drug dealing that can fly below their radar for income. The poor need food, water and shelter not subsidized apartments and monthly checks that they can spend on booze and crack if they want to. A charity would put a roof over your head, but not necessarily afford you the privacy of your own place. A charity would give people fairly standard nutritional foods instead of a check card that allows you to eat nothing but microwave meals.

I certainly understand wanting to help the poor and I know that charity can meet their needs in this time of extraordinary agricultural technology. I have a problem that people think they ought to be able to live a “ghetto fabulous” lifestyle at others’ expense. Recent years have shown some success with results-based programs instead of just a direct needs approach. When it comes to the real poor and chronically homeless, I have wondered about this policy as a function of implementing Georgism:

The federal government currently owns 28.8% of our country and I advocate this percent changing to 0%. Why not cede part of this land to a nonprofit and allow homeless to live off of it? I see no reason why they couldn’t subside off this land and even become net contributors to society. There would of course be some initial investment for shelter and administration as well as communal sanitation facilities, but it is just a shift from one form of funding to one that builds something permanent. I wonder though how many homeless would even be interested in this program or if I am missing something bad about it. There are lots of homeless near where I live, so I guess I could poll them..

 
Flag Post

Communism does not, and never will work. I said that it kills incentive and ability because it does.

Why would anybody want to hold a great job, like a doctor, when they get paid just as much as someone working in a factory?

Communism is like a lawnmower, it cuts everybody down, to the same low size.

Everyone says it’s great because it will spread the money from the rich, to the poor. Ever wonder how the rich became rich? Through (most of the time) hard work and using their abilities. They became rich by using their mind, something which communism seeks to kill; a moratorium on brains if you will. And the rich, which everyone seeks to dethrone, are the highest employers of anyone, and pay the most too. Money is the root of all good; the more money an individual has, the more charitable he will be. If you’re in a free market system, that rewards intelligence and ability then things will be better. People will come up with ideas, knowing that they will be rewarded for it. Ideas that make things cheaper, faster, better. Saving the employer man hours and money, and what does he, saving money, effect? You, the consumer. It lowers prices and increases the quality of the product that you buy. This is why competition in a free market system is essential. If you have two companies competing over the same market with the same product, it becomes a race for who can produce the most, the best, the cheapest without going under. This compared to communism where nothing changes.

 
Flag Post
bq. Almost none of these countries have sliding tax rates. There are exceptions but for most the income tax is 45-55% with a 15-20% VAT (similar to sales tax). One guy from Norway I think, told me that eating what is a $4 meal at McDonalds in the US, costs $40 there. I remember eating McDs in the airport in Lisbon and it being only slightly marked up, so I suppose there is some variance. I think I've stumbled into another person's argument here, not knowing which countries he's referring to! But in the UK it's not too bad at all. From that McDonald's burger thing they do (As you can see, I'm clearly an expert :)) the UK pays less than the USA. I _think_ that's relevent :P bq. I wouldn’t call 50% of my wages and 20% of everything I buy a small piece of the pie. I think you misunderstand my, frankly terrible, metaphor there :) I just meant that I'd rather have a poorer country with a small wage gap than a richer country with a huge one, if it meant that the _actual_ average wage would rise. Small amount of something shared between everyone equally, rather than a big amount owned by a few with the majority getting very little. Don't know about the doctor bit- that can't be true can it? I mean, how much does treatment cost nowadays, a doctor wouldn't pay for it out of his/her own pocket? I don't think of welfare as charity- though I have nothing against charity. As a part of society, a person has a responsibility to society- and to the people of that society. Without society, and everyone else, no person would be what they are or have what they have. Not everyone has an equal chance to fulfill their potential and live the kind of productive life they'd like to lead. Those people need help, and to leave them relying completely on voluntary charity? No stability, or dignity? And what about people without "popular" diseases and such? A government's job, in my opinion, is to protect its civilians- defend the natural rights of these citizens, satisfy citizen's needs. If a government needs to tax to fulfil this role, then I fully support it. We wouldn't have the army rely on voluntary donations, why would we have the welfare of the unfortunate? Private charities would also have to spend money on organisation and bureaucracy, perhaps more being a number of private organisations rather than one central one. Without any such organisation, how are these charities supposed to put the money they get to use? It's not a case of throwing money at the people who need welfare, it's putting the system in place that will help them get back on their feet. I disagree with the whole "ghetto fabulous" and drug-dealing stuff- that's just stereotyping, I shouldn't imagine it's representative, and even if it's widespread, I wouldn't judge it an acceptable reason to phase out welfare for those who need it too. Like Marx said- "From each according to their ability". If you _can_ work, but choose not to, you don't get welfare. In the UK welfare for the jobless is focussed on getting people into work- giving people opportunities for work and getting people into training or education rather than just giving them money. No one can live any kind of affluent lifestyle on UK jobseeker's benefits, but it _can_ meet people's needs until they find a job. For me, the moral outrage isn't in people getting taxed to pay for the welfare of others- it's bosses and celebrities taking obscene salaries for little labour while people doing what could actually be considered work get little. It's not those on welfare taking what they don't deserve, it's the rich. People on welfare get comparatively paltry amounts compared to heirs and celebrities and the rest of them, who've worked for it no more than people relying on welfare have- they're the drain. At least with people on welfare it's money given for a purpose, to get people back on their feet, to provide them with their basic needs, to provide them with an education. It's money spent with a view to the future. For the rich? It pays for extravagance. If everyone recieved their due we'd have no full-time workers having to rely on welfare for homes, or education for their kids, or healthcare. If we went all commie and nationalised the key industries we wouldn't have to rely on taxation to pay for the welfare that would still be needed, and if we went government-less Communism as envisaged by Marx the bureaucracy cost would be minimised. Now I'm not communist, but I do sympathise- it's the most compassionate, and the most concerned with providing security for the citizens, the most concerned with giving people back what they contribute to society, rather than having the hardest jobs pay the least and the easiest "jobs" the most. This hasn't played out when people have tried to implement it, however- so I don't particularly support Communism; but other systems based on its worthy attributes I do- and that certainly isn't laissez-faire capitalism. So... not communist, but roughly on its side in that I support its ideals. EDIT: I removed most of the quotes and things, I hope it's obvious which bit refers to what. If not it's my fault, I just thought quoting huge passages would be possibly annoying and double the size of the post :) EDIT2: Racman- I disagree that it's the able or the hard-working who get rich, generally. It's whose parents can afford what education, whose family can pay for what, who can make use of the corruption of the system the most effectively. I don't think anyone can argue that celebrities or heirs work for what they get- and with companies the trend seems to be that those who use the most underhand business practices are the most successful. If it's hard work that they succeed, it's not that of the bosses- it's that of the sweatshop workers, the wage-slaves, the labourers. Bolshevik communism is criticised (rightfully so) for giving concessions to the thinkers at the top that they don't give to those who do the work, and as far as I'm concerned companies are also guilty of this. Anyway, even if more ability = more wealth, no amount of ability would be able to justify the obscene amounts people get away with. EDIT3: Communism would I guess kill monetary incentive, sure- surely there are alternatives. Giving tradesmen back the dignity of creation, the joy of accomplishment and teamwork? Do we really think that people would just not make an effort because of money? A meaningful life is worth more than an extravagant one. It would also kill the incentive to partake in crooked business practices, the incentive to exploit others to line your own pockets.
 
Flag Post

Hobolad

Welfare isn’t charity, it’s theft.

Nobody has any responsibility to society, many of our problems today stem from the fact that people hold society before the individual.

about 99% of people do have the chance to live a productive life. Whether or not they take the chance to is the question. If you have the ability and are determined then not being given the chance is no excuse. You should not be expected to be given anything, you have to make the chance yourself.

You disagree with voluntary charity? Talking about them having no dignity? The only kind of charity is voluntary, otherwise it’s theft. Do you think they would have no dignity knowing, with voluntary charity people would think “Here is someone who could use some help.” when they donate? No. Their lack of dignity comes from the money they’re being given comming from the point of a gun. They know, that the money they’re receiving should not rightfully be theirs. That it is stolen money. That people are viewing them as thieves. That’s where their lack of dignity comes from.

The only job of the gov. is to protect the people of it’s country from outside threats. Problems arise when the gov. feels that it needs to do more, when that is simply not true. Private businesses can do anything the gov. can do better, faster, and cheaper.

The private charities bit makes no sense. The goal of getting them back on their feet is possible only if they wish to. If I remember correctly, Kennedy did a test to see the effects of giving money to low income families. The results he got was, the more money families received in Entitlement programs, the less incentive they had to work. I agree that throwing money at them won’t help the problem, but, if people really want to get back on their feet, it will help.

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” -I first heard this when I read Atlas Shrugged and later in the Communist Manifesto. I still feel it is one of the most evil phrases I have ever heard. If you would like to see how this truly works out, read Atlas Shrugged. It has a great example, and let me tell you, it doesn’t work well.

Getting people jobs is an excellent idea. But, only if they are qualified for the jobs, and I’m not paying them to do a job that I don’t need them to do. The latter becomes a factor if the gov. is setting up the job for them. Anytime a polititian says something about creating jobs, it means that you are going to be paying these people’s salaries for something you don’t need them to be doing.

People are payed what everyone else thinks they’re worth. Only a few people in the country can hit like Babe Ruth, Mark McGuire, and Barry Bonds (ignoring the steroid fact). People think that this is a worthy skill and are willing to pay large amounts of money to see them do it. Are people always payed what we think they should earn? No. I believe firemen and police officers are extremely underpaid. However, society does not seem to think so, that being the case, all salaries are exactly what they should be.

Communism increases bureaucracy. Look at Commy Russia. They had one of the largest and least efficient bureaucracies in the world.

Communism does not work, no part of it works. Period.

People are payed according to how valuable people think there ability is.

 
Flag Post

Welfare isn’t charity, it’s theft.

I disagree, for the reasons above- that’s just the parroting of some libertarian phrase.

Nobody has any responsibility to society, many of our problems today stem from the fact that people hold society before the individual.

I disagree- I’m a fan of social contract theory, it makes most sense to me. The welfare of people depend on the welfare of society.

about 99% of people do have the chance to live a productive life. Whether or not they take the chance to is the question. If you have the ability and are determined then not being given the chance is no excuse. You should not be expected to be given anything, you have to make the chance yourself.

People don’t have an equal chance- not everyone gets the same educational level for instance, people don’t have rich parents that can pay for whatever career they want- not everyone can afford higher education, or equipment necessary for that education etc etc. The playing field isn’t level- and even if it was, a person shouldn’t be condenmed because of their actions as a child in education.

You disagree with voluntary charity? Talking about them having no dignity? The only kind of charity is voluntary, otherwise it’s theft. Do you think they would have no dignity knowing, with voluntary charity people would think “Here is someone who could use some help.” when they donate? No. Their lack of dignity comes from the money they’re being given comming from the point of a gun. They know, that the money they’re receiving should not rightfully be theirs. That it is stolen money. That people are viewing them as thieves. That’s where their lack of dignity comes from.

I never said I disagree with voluntary charity, just at the idea that people are expected to rely solely on it. The lack of dignity comes from knowing that you’re at the mercy of individuals, that it is a whim of theirs that you can live and that there is no certainty for the future. If your idea of where the lack of dignity comes is a consensus opinion that would seriously damage my already low opinion of humanity- they’re not thieves for christ’s sake.

The only job of the gov. is to protect the people of it’s country from outside threats. Problems arise when the gov. feels that it needs to do more, when that is simply not true. Private businesses can do anything the gov. can do better, faster, and cheaper.

I disagree, a government isn’t just an army. Private business is for making money- that isn’t the be all and end all. A society should not, in my opinion, be based around profit- rather it should be securing happiness, security, equality and fixing the wrongs of past incarnations of society that has lead to such an inequal economy and disgusting lack of compassion.

The private charities bit makes no sense. The goal of getting them back on their feet is possible only if they wish to. If I remember correctly, Kennedy did a test to see the effects of giving money to low income families. The results he got was, the more money families received in Entitlement programs, the less incentive they had to work. I agree that throwing money at them won’t help the problem, but, if people really want to get back on their feet, it will help.

If they don’t wish to work, but have the ability to, then they don’t get welfare. Of course they’d have less incentive to work the more money they recieved- that’s my point, that the money should be going into the organisation and the bureaucracy that gives people a path into work while paying for the person’s needs until they can support themselves.

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” -I first heard this when I read Atlas Shrugged and later in the Communist Manifesto. I still feel it is one of the most evil phrases I have ever heard. If you would like to see how this truly works out, read Atlas Shrugged. It has a great example, and let me tell you, it doesn’t work well.

I’ve read it, didn’t care for it. It struck me as completely contrived to try and justify Rand’s own selfishness. I also read it before the Communist Manifesto, which I also didn’t particularly care for- but I prefer its ideals to those of Rand.

Getting people jobs is an excellent idea. But, only if they are qualified for the jobs, and I’m not paying them to do a job that I don’t need them to do. The latter becomes a factor if the gov. is setting up the job for them. Anytime a polititian says something about creating jobs, it means that you are going to be paying these people’s salaries for something you don’t need them to be doing.

Or it means that they’ll be payed salaries to improve services and lighten the load of everyone else? Hell, if a society could create enough jobs to employ everyone on a living wage I would judge that society to be a success- even if a percentage of those jobs wasn’t necessarily needed.

People are payed what everyone else thinks they’re worth. Only a few people in the country can hit like Babe Ruth, Mark McGuire, and Barry Bonds (ignoring the steroid fact). People think that this is a worthy skill and are willing to pay large amounts of money to see them do it. Are people always payed what we think they should earn? No. I believe firemen and police officers are extremely underpaid. However, society does not seem to think so, that being the case, all salaries are exactly what they should be.

Society thinks so? Does society as a whole even have a say? Too much money is in the hands of the bosses to pay these people with, rather than those who deserve it- just because it is the way it is doesn’t mean that morally it should be, there’s no excuse for any celebrity or sports person to “earn” more than real workers. It’s not “society” that decides, it’s those with the money and those with the power.

Communism increases bureaucracy. Look at Commy Russia. They had one of the largest and least efficient bureaucracies in the world.

Russia was never communist.

Communism does not work, no part of it works. Period.

I agree, that communism doesn’t work at least. But all you’ve been doing is spouting libertarian nonsense and using that as an anti-communist argument, which it isn’t. There’s a libertarian thread a while back, it’d be nice if in this thread it was kept to a critique of Communist ideology rather than “Here’s a different ideology, I like this one better- therefore other ones are wrong”.

People are payed according to how valuable people think there ability is.

Not all people, just the ones with the power to decide.

 
Flag Post

“I disagree, for the reasons above- that’s just the parroting of some libertarian phrase.”

Any money forcefully taken from you at the point of a gun is theft.

The individual comes first. Society loves to martyr the individual for the sake of society, forgetting that by doing so, people lose the incentive to create a better life for “society”

“People don’t have an equal chance”

True, it can never be truly equal, however, someone wishing to seek knowledge can find it no matter what their families income level is.

“a person shouldn’t be condenmed because of their actions as a child in education”

the only thing that matters is education.

“knowing that you’re at the mercy of individuals”

as opposed to the security of knowing that Uncle Sam is pointing a gun at people, demanding that they hand over their money to you.

The only reason for a private business is to make money. Why create a business that doesn’t? It’s not for “securing happiness, security, equality” By making money and being good at your job you get all of those, well.. maybe not equality. That’s an impossibility. People will always be treated unequally regardless of race/religion/any other factor.

“justify Rand’s own selfishness”

Selfishness, as in… looking out for yourself instead of asking someone to do it for you?

" Too much money is in the hands of the bosses to pay these people with"

By what right are you judging how much money is too much?
By what code are you comparing them to?
By what standard are you holding them to?
They are the bosses because they are (or should be if they’re not) the ones’ with the most ability. They are the ones who stepped up and took a chance, and thus, should make the most money.

“rather than those who deserve it”

Such as whom?
The workers? If they don’t like how much money they’re making, they’re free to work somewhere else, and when they find that nobody is willing to pay them more than they were making, they’ll realize that that’s how much money they’re worth to society

“there’s no excuse for any celebrity or sports person to “earn” more than real workers”

Define a “real worker”
Everyone who does work, is a worker.
People obviously feel that the sports stars are worth more than a factory worker.
And yes, society does decide by casting their dollar vote.

“Russia was never communist.”

…I think that statement right there just showed us just how intelligent you really are.

“But all you’ve been doing is spouting libertarian nonsense”

as opposed to your communist ones?

“critique of Communist ideology”

that’s exactly what we’re doing

“Not all people, just the ones with the power to decide.”

Nobody decides how much they’re worth. That’s up to everyone else.

 
Flag Post

Some Scandinavian statistics:

“Where has 60% tax? And anyway, that would only be for the rich. Does it really do any harm for a person to be on 400K rather than 1million? That’s no injustice- but living under the poverty line while working a full-time job is.”

Sweden (where I live) had the highest tax rate in the world, until the Liberal-Conservative Coalition took power in 2006 (we now have the 2:nd highest tax rate in the world). The tax burden lies between 36-72% depending on your income, and an avarage family pays about 47,8% tax (not sure). Earning 150 000 USD is enough to reach the 72& maximum. A person earning 1 Million USD would have 280K left.

“One guy from Norway I think, told me that eating what is a $4 meal at McDonalds in the US, costs $40 there. "

A Big Mac &Co costs about $8.

“Most doctors used to give free health care to the poor, but government has caused them to stop. "

In Sweden most doctors used to give health care to children for a price, but the government has caused them to stop.

Health care is now free for all habitants at the age of <21, including dental care.

 
Flag Post

your all just a bunch of commies

 
Flag Post

More security for individuals, I guess.

Still sounds kind of vague to me. Everyone is ‘better’ than everyone else.

 
Flag Post

Communism does not, and never will work. I said that it kills incentive and ability because it does. Why would anybody want to hold a great job, like a doctor, when they get paid just as much as someone working in a factory?

Read my post on the last page. I’m not restating it.

Any money forcefully taken from you at the point of a gun is theft.

So, a large corporation taking a portion of the wealth produced by its people is theft, you must agree.

as opposed to the security of knowing that Uncle Sam is pointing a gun at people, demanding that they hand over their money to you.

Yes, silly government paying for things like “Fire departments” and “schools” with my money. It’s my right to keep it to myself, dammit!

They are the bosses because they are (or should be if they’re not) the ones’ with the most ability. They are the ones who stepped up and took a chance, and thus, should make the most money.

Read about the Gilded Age. Becuase your policies are directly advocating the Gilded Age. If that is what you want, so be it. I would not like such a society. This applies to most of the rest of your post as well.

…I think that statement right there just showed us just how intelligent you really are.

No, not at all. In fact, you’ve just backfired your own argument. Anyone that claims the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is truly communist does not really know what they are talking about. They called themselves the communist party because they wanted to eventually attain communism, at least at the point of revolution. The Soviet Union was not communist, it was totalitarian socialist. In fact, “Communist” China has even gone as far as capitalism. Yet still calls themself “communist”. People can call themselves whatever they want, it doesn’t make it right.

as opposed to your communist ones?

No, Hobolad has been using reason and logic to defend his argument. You have been using catchphrases and buzzwords.

 
Flag Post

So, a large corporation taking a portion of the wealth produced by its people is theft, you must agree.

No, I don’t. A corporation hires people to work for it, such as to produce goods. It pays people to produce them while keeping the goods for itself, it then sells the goods for more than it cost to produce them. That profit is theirs, they didn’t take it from anyone at the point of a gun.

Yes, silly government paying for things like “Fire departments” and “schools” with my money.

If you don’t want them, you shouldn’t have to pay for them.

It’s my right to keep it to myself

Yes, it is.

Read about the Gilded Age.

I have. I see no problem. Sometimes unethical practices were in use by the ‘Robber Barons’ or the Captains of Industry as I like to think of them. And yes, I disagree with the occasional illegal practices, however, the age was filled with Industrial and Population growth in the US.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Communism/Fascism/Socialism/Marxism are all about the same, and they all lead to the same low place. Russia however, is no longer any of the above, they are on their way to being a capitalist society and flourishing because of it. China is still communist though, Hong Kong is not. Hong Kong is capitalist and one of the richest cities in the world.

Hobolad has been using reason and logic to defend his argument.

No part of communism is logical.

catchphrases and buzzwords

Bullshit. I’ve been using the reason and logic you speak of. Every point that was brought up, I met with a valid and logical argument.

I argue for the individual, while you argue for the “people”

Try forming a reasonable and logical argument for sacrificing individual ability, because that’s what you’re saying by siding with communism.

 
Flag Post

Any money forcefully taken from you at the point of a gun is theft.

That’s a bit dramatic. The concept of “money” is a societal thing, anyway. Without society, we’d never have had currency. Money isn’t a natural right, it’s an institution of society (according to the philosophical ideas I like, which you might not- which is fair enough, but that’s where I stand).

The individual comes first. Society loves to martyr the individual for the sake of society, forgetting that by doing so, people lose the incentive to create a better life for “society”

I disagree, I think I’ve said why.

True, it can never be truly equal, however, someone wishing to seek knowledge can find it no matter what their families income level is.

There’s a huge cultural difference, as well- and when industry wasn’t regulated during the Industrial Revolution children as young as five where expected to work for seven days a week, at long hours. Same nowadays in countries where industry isn’t regulated. I don’t see how those people could expect to ever get access to an education (without government involvement). The church at the time did its bit, which was well cool of them and I personally think Marx was wrong about religion being only a force for control, but even a powerful organisation like that couldn’t make a significant impact.

the only thing that matters is education.

There’s further training, too. I just don’t think it’s fair to have a person’s only shot at life be constrained because of their actions as a child.

as opposed to the security of knowing that Uncle Sam is pointing a gun at people, demanding that they hand over their money to you.

A bit dramatic.

The only reason for a private business is to make money. Why create a business that doesn’t? It’s not for bq. “securing happiness, security, equality” By making money and being good at your job you get all of those, well.. maybe not equality. That’s an impossibility. People will always be treated unequally regardless of race/religion/any other factor.

So keep them in their role of making money, don’t give them the job of running the world.

Selfishness, as in… looking out for yourself instead of asking someone to do it for you?

No, selfishness as in thinking she’s special and deserves the things she has more than those with less, when she’s only got it because of opportunities that others didn’t have. Rand probably isn’t the best representative of that, as I understand her family had a pretty hard time from the Bolsheviks, but they still had the money to secure a top rate education for her and enough money to sustain her while she did it, which not a lot have.

By what right are you judging how much money is too much?
By what code are you comparing them to?
By what standard are you holding them to?

The wage gap, the needless extravagance. Just a personal moral code based on what constitutes a living wage, who falls below that standard and who has way way more than they’d ever need.

They are the bosses because they are (or should be if they’re not) the ones’ with the most ability. They are the ones who stepped up and took a chance, and thus, should make the most money.

They’re the ones who had the opportunity. How many possibly fantastic bosses have spent their whole lives sewing clothes, or had to go straight into work after school because they couldn’t have sustained themselves otherwise? I have issue with the idea that education as it is measures any relevent ability anyway, but that’s another discussion.

Such as whom?
The workers? If they don’t like how much money they’re making, they’re free to work somewhere else, and when they find that nobody is willing to pay them more than they were making, they’ll realize that that’s how much money they’re worth to society

It’s just not that easy to find jobs, y’know. That’s not “what they’re worth to society”, it’s what the people in charge choose to pay- and as they’re the ones that profit by undervaluing workers I don’t think they’re the ones who should be making that decision.

Define a “real worker”
Everyone who does work, is a worker.
People obviously feel that the sports stars are worth more than a factory worker.
And yes, society does decide by casting their dollar vote.

Again, it’s not a democratic consensus. A fairly recent study (earlier this year) done in the UK had people of all walks of life judge how much they think a variety of jobs are really worth- and it’s a lot different to what it actually is. All raises to the minumum wage are highly supported by society as a whole. The rich alone don’t represent society.

…I think that statement right there just showed us just how intelligent you really are.

I’ll take that as a compliment, because I’m right. Communism is a system without government. There are lots of ways in which the USSR diverges from Communist doctrine by a hell of a lot, but that’s the main one. People fought a revolution for Communism, once it has “succeeded” (I wouldn’t call the USSR a success story) the resulting government had to call it’s self Communist, and it was called Communist by it’s enemies- it never actually was.

as opposed to your communist ones?

In a thread about Communism….

that’s exactly what we’re doing

You’ve criticised tax funded welfare. Not communist. The rest is just “this is why I think libertarianism is right”, not even touching on communism.

Nobody decides how much they’re worth. That’s up to everyone else.

“Everyone else” doesn’t though, a very small percentage of people do. I’ll search for that report and edit this post if I find it- the one about the wages people really want for a variety of jobs.

EDIT:

Still sounds kind of vague to me. Everyone is ‘better’ than everyone else.

Yeah, “betterness” might be a bit hard to qualify :) It’s a subjective thing. The “more security” was just a hypothetical based on the news and (don’t hurt me!) Michael Moore films :D Worry about medical costs and education and stuff- that we don’t really have, or at it seems not to the same extent.

 
Flag Post

It in theory should work, but as I have said before it’s all patience, which most dictators and communist leaders dont have lol

 
Flag Post

That’s a bit dramatic.

But true.

Without society, we’d never have had currency.

I completely agree. Money is a product of society, before that it was a barter system (I’ll trade you 4 chickens for a cow) sort of thing. However, money (or anything used as currency such as gold or silver) only has meaning because it is based on the product of mans’ work.

Money isn’t a natural right, it’s an institution of society

I completely disagree with this. Money is a product of your ability. By saying that money isn’t a natural right is like saying that you don’t have a right to your ability. However, it is not your right to have money, you must work for it.

according to the philosophical ideas I like, which you might not- which is fair enough, but that’s where I stand

Ok, I respect your stance. That doesn’t mean I won’t try to… encourage you to take one I think is better, but it’s your right to think and act how you like so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

children as young as five where expected to work for seven days a week, at long hours.

Ok, yes. That is a fact. However, it was because the families were generally larger back then and the income of a single factory worker could not always cover the cost of the large families.

I don’t see how those people could expect to ever get access to an education

Private business. You see it all the time with private schools that do not take gov. money. Parents always try to get their kids into private schools if they can afford it because they are generally better schools.

organisation like that couldn’t make a significant impact.

The church has, for hundreds of years played a huge role in… everything. Declare war here because they’re heretics. Make this a law because god said it. The crusades, the inquisition; all based on the impact of the church.

because of their actions as a child.

…ok, I may have been a bit harsh. While your actions as a child matter… I suppose you could turn it around. I do think that the only thing that matters is intelligence though.

A bit dramatic.

But true, because that’s exactly what they’re doing.

So keep them in their role of making money, don’t give them the job of running the world.

I agree, however, merely by being a large business- actually, any business- you have a role in running the world.

when she’s only got it because of opportunities that others didn’t have

She was born in Russia! Back when it sucked.

top rate education

back to my point of intelligence is the only thing that matters

needless extravagance

who decides what’s needless?

personal moral code

that’s the only kind that should exist, so I do commend you on that.

what constitutes a living wage

People are living far beyond their means. They’re buying houses that are too big and cost too much in areas that are far overtaxed. Their living wage is not what it should be.
And if they’re not making enough, they are free to seek employment elsewhere or get another job.

They’re the ones who had the opportunity

and they took it. They used their intelligence to make the most of the opportunity that they probably created (unless they did it through some illegal or unethical means).

It’s just not that easy to find jobs

This is America, the land of opportunity. There are jobs everywhere just not the jobs that people are looking for.

That’s not “what they’re worth to society”

yes, it is.

it’s what the people in charge choose to pay

Which is their right as employers

undervaluing workers

If they think they’re worth more, they can seek employment somewhere else for more pay.

The rich alone don’t represent society.

I agree, but, if people didn’t think the celebrities and sports stars were worth as much as they’re paid, they wouldn’t pay so much to see them.

In a thread about Communism….

which i’m debating, by taking the opposite stance.

not even touching on communism

Libertarianism is the opposite of communism. Merely by taking the libertarian side I am showing how communism cannot work.

It in theory should work

I agree, communism looks good on paper, but it just cannot work.

 
Flag Post

But true.

But true, because that’s exactly what they’re doing.

No, it’s merely a slogan. Tax is an institution of the state and society, as is the idea of ownership and thievery at all- and it has no bearing in a topic about communism anyway.

I completely agree. Money is a product of society, before that it was a barter system (I’ll trade you 4 chickens for a cow) sort of thing. However, money (or anything used as currency such as gold or silver) only has meaning because it is based on the product of mans’ work.

If people recieved amounts based on the work they put in it’d be fair- less so, but more fair than it is now would be if people recieved amounts based on society judging how much it’s worth- not just the rich, the bosses, the execs.

I completely disagree with this. Money is a product of your ability. By saying that money isn’t a natural right is like saying that you don’t have a right to your ability. However, it is not your right to have money, you must work for it.

And people aren’t paid fairly for the work they put in, or their ability to do that work.

Ok, yes. That is a fact. However, it was because the families were generally larger back then and the income of a single factory worker could not always cover the cost of the large families.

There were a lot of reasons- like a lack of an accessible education, with all education being private and so out of reach for the vast majority- and the undervaluing of these workers.

Private business. You see it all the time with private schools that do not take gov. money. Parents always try to get their kids into private schools if they can afford it because they are generally better schools.

Better- they can afford to be. Sadly most can’t afford to go to private schools, not then and not today. Priveliged parents might, not the majority.

The church has, for hundreds of years played a huge role in… everything. Declare war here because they’re heretics. Make this a law because god said it. The crusades, the inquisition; all based on the impact of the church.

And even something that powerful couldn’t get all these children into education- something the state has managed to do.

…ok, I may have been a bit harsh. While your actions as a child matter… I suppose you could turn it around. I do think that the only thing that matters is intelligence though.

It doesn’t matter how intelligent you are if you can’t get into education, or can’t sustain yourself while in further education. And intelligence =/= better grades.

I agree, however, merely by being a large business- actually, any business- you have a role in running the world.

They don’t run it, they squeeze as much money out of it as they can. A country with no regulation and nothing but private business would be a country with no other purpose than to generate profit, for the bosses. All instances of unregulated business so far have been bad news- slavery, a lack of health and safety, underpaid workers, private armies, etc.

She was born in Russia! Back when it sucked.

And she was one of the ones who could afford to move and then have her education paid for, unlike 99%.

This is America, the land of opportunity. There are jobs everywhere just not the jobs that people are looking for.

That’s not true at all, but if it was- could you really blame people for not wanting to be stuck in dead end jobs at low pay for their whole lives because they didn’t have the opportunity to get a decent education- when there are jobs there they have the ability to do but haven’t got the opportunity to get into?

And low-payed undesirable jobs are the essential ones- if they got paid in relation to the effort put in and were afforded the dignity they deserve rather than being sneered down on by brats who got mother and father to buy them into universities, then maybe they’d be the jobs that people are looking for.

yes, it is.

Are you gonna say why? Or is it, because it just is?

Which is their right as employers

I disagree- those people aren’t in the position to judge what a job is worth fairly, as paying workers as low as possible and scrimping on health and safety means more for them. An employer has responsibilities as well as rights- but then I guess “responsibility” is a word alien to libertarians :/

I agree, but, if people didn’t think the celebrities and sports stars were worth as much as they’re paid, they wouldn’t pay so much to see them.

If people could decide, then they wouldn’t pay so much. People don’t get to think how much they’re worth- they don’t have a say.

which i’m debating, by taking the opposite stance.
bq. Libertarianism is the opposite of communism. Merely by taking the libertarian side I am showing how communism cannot work.

How is it the opposite of libertarianism? And you’re just saying that you like libertarianism, not why it would be superior to anything. Nothing you’ve said even suggests that libertarianism would work, and there’s certainly nothing there that argues against communism. What has tax on private companies got to do with communism, seeing as how neither concept even has place in communism?

EDIT: Forgot one-

who decides what’s needless?

I’d imagine common sense. You can live a priveliged lifestyle free of need and of sensible want on a lot less than 50K, those on 100s of thousands and millions and billions are just greedy. Money for the sake of having money, none of these people would be particularly hurt or affected by a salary of 50K, anyone who wants all the things you can only get as a millionaire I would call greedy. Private jets? Diamonds dug out of the ground by slaves? Multiple huge houses? Several expensive cars?

I wouldn’t call it moral, but I wouldn’t grieve should those people get hurt :)

EDIT2: Missed another!

People are living far beyond their means. They’re buying houses that are too big and cost too much in areas that are far overtaxed. Their living wage is not what it should be.
And if they’re not making enough, they are free to seek employment elsewhere or get another job.

If they’re living beyond their means and yet still haven’t reached a living wage then obviously they aren’t being provided with the necessary means. A living wage is defined as the amount that a person requires to function in society, at it’s most austere. Buying houses has nothing to do with it, when you have people working full time with only enough means to rent or rely on council housing. That doesn’t suggest living beyond their means, that suggests not enough means to allow them to live.

And it’s just not that easy to up and get a job, much less to up and get a progressable career.

But then again this has nothing to do with communism :/

EDIT3: A question before I log off-

Which has society had more of a role in deciding-

The wages paid as set by bosses.

The taxes and regulations as set by democratically elected political parties.

…?

 
Flag Post

No, I don’t. A corporation hires people to work for it, such as to produce goods. It pays people to produce them while keeping the goods for itself, it then sells the goods for more than it cost to produce them. That profit is theirs, they didn’t take it from anyone at the point of a gun.

You are forced to work or you will die of starvation. Therefore, corporations force you to work “at the point of a gun”. The phrase “at the point of a gun” does not prove anything.

Communism/Fascism/Socialism/Marxism are all about the same, and they all lead to the same low place. Russia however, is no longer any of the above, they are on their way to being a capitalist society and flourishing because of it. China is still communist though, Hong Kong is not. Hong Kong is capitalist and one of the richest cities in the world.

I can’t believe you just compared Fascism to Soclialism and communism. I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and should stop saying anything before you read The Communist Manifesto and point to where it suggests a ruthless dictatorship run by one person and encouraging purges and censorship. Hell, why not go to http://socialistinternational.org and point to where all these things are in their mission statement. If you actually do know what these words mean, I suggest you stop using them incorrectly and read http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm . For the millionth time, China is NOT communist. I don’t know how to say this without sounding like an asshole, but you have absolutely no idea what the word “communism” means.

If you don’t want them, you shouldn’t have to pay for them.

“Help! Help! My house is on fire!”
“Do you have to money to pay us?”
“No! It should be simple human decency for you to come save my life and property! It’s your job!”
“Sorry, we only save people that can afford it. click

Sounds fun.

I have. I see no problem. Sometimes unethical practices were in use by the ‘Robber Barons’ or the Captains of Industry as I like to think of them. And yes, I disagree with the occasional illegal practices, however, the age was filled with Industrial and Population growth in the US.

No normal person should look back on the Gilded age and say “There was nothing wrong with that.” 80-hour workweeks? Children in Sweatshops? Suppression of worker’s unions? Education only provided to those who can afford it? A meat-packing industry with absolutely no FDA standards?

This is what happens when we have an “individualistic” policy, where the government doesn’t regulate business and people are allowed to have “freedom of enterprise”. Corruptness was not my point. My point was the absolute disregard for human rights, outside of “freedom”.

I heard there was industrial growth under Hilter too.

I argue for the individual, while you argue for the “people”

This statement says absolutely nothing. The word individual has no meaning. Read Politics and the English Language. And I see nothing wrong for defending the populace as a whole rather than the upper-class.

No part of communism is logical.

No part of libertarianism is logical.

Statements like these do not prove anything, and are what I was referring to when I meant “Buzzwords and catchphrases.” as well as things like “Taxes are theft”.

Try forming a reasonable and logical argument for sacrificing individual ability, because that’s what you’re saying by siding with communism.

What?

Hobolad: bq. Communism is a system without government

I’ll have to disagree here. Communism probably can’t work without a government for the same reason capitalism can’t. There’s nothing to regulate and unify it.

and they took it. They used their intelligence to make the most of the opportunity that they probably created (unless they did it through some illegal or unethical means).
Paraphrasing Marx:

“Profits are really just wages taken from the workers.”

Why is Marx wrong?

 
Flag Post

WOW you people are really serious about this…

 
Flag Post

I’ll have to disagree here. Communism probably can’t work without a government for the same reason capitalism can’t. There’s nothing to regulate and unify it.

That’s how it was defined by Marx- as completely stateless. I don’t think that would work, unless it got global, which I shouldn’t think will ever happen- so government run socialism is probably the closest we could get to, realistically. That’s an argument for why communism can’t work (understandably, times have changed since the 1840’s) but it’s general sentiments and ideals I’d support, it’s all just in the detail :)

WOW you people are really serious about this…

It’s a serious discussion :)

 
Flag Post

www.mises.org www.lewrockwell.com

Read and learn of the greatness of free-markets and the downfalls of any socialism or communism.

 
Flag Post

^ about as useful as saying

http://www.google.com/

Read and learn of the greatness of socialism or communism and the downfalls of any free markets.

Marx, Rawls, Hayek and Nozick are a good starting place for getting a balanced look at the idealist theory of libertarianism vs socialism. The ‘veil of ignorance’ particularly is relevent to some of the points made above about distributive justice.

 
Flag Post

Hobolad

No, it’s merely a slogan.

But it’s true.

Tax is an institution of the state and society

For stealing money from you.

as is the idea of ownership and thievery at all

I didn’t think ownership and thievery were difficult ideas to understand, but apparently they are for you.

and it has no bearing in a topic about communism anyway

Yes, I forgot that in a communist society there is no such thing as private property, since the government steals it for “the people”.

based on the work they put in it’d be fair

So the person who develops a way to save hundreds of man hours and produces the same amount of items as someone who takes longer to do it should be payed the same? “Work” is relative. You’d have to define it somehow, and once you do you realize that that’s how people are payed in factories anyway.

society judging how much it’s worth

That’s the only way to judge how much you’re worth. Everyone feels that they should make hundreds of thousands a year, but society doesn’t think so.

And people aren’t paid fairly for the work they put in, or their ability to do that work.

Who do you think should decide what’s fair? People are payed by ability.

with all education being private

Wrong: Boston Latin School in Boston, Mass. is the oldest public school in America.

and the undervaluing of these workers

They were making more in the industrial revolution than in any time in history. Yes, by today’s standards they were working in horrible conditions and for little pay, however, for the time they were the best jobs in the world. They were making fantastic money, in great conditions for the time.

Sadly most can’t afford to go to private schools

The price of private schools would go down if competition were included. There is almost no competition in private schools because yes, they are more expensive and thus people go to the public schools which force others to pay for their children’s education. Take out the public schools and turn them into private, you’d have schools competing for your dollar. They’d be bringing their costs down as low as possible and hiring the best teachers available.

And even something that powerful couldn’t get all these children into education

They taught them morals, that most people accept such as not to kill people in cold blood, not to steal (obviously the politicians never learned those lessons)

something the state has managed to do

The church never takes your money at the point of a gun, they ask for voluntary donations.

how intelligent you are if you can’t get into education

Yes, it does. There is no reason you can’t read a book on physics and learn it if you’re intelligent enough. Very little I’ve learned was taught to me in school, if I wanted to know something, I taught it to myself.

=/=

I suppose that means does not equal? I would have used != or <>
But that’s not the point. The point is, I agree. Look at Einstein, most intelligent man… ever, and he got C’s and D’s in school. So what does that say about your intelligence/education argument?

squeeze as much money out of it as they can

They’re in business to make money.

A country with no regulation and nothing but private business would be a country with no other purpose than to generate profit

And that’s a bad thing?

for the bosses

Who then pays his employees

All instances of unregulated business so far have been bad news

such as?

slavery

That’s not business, slavery has nothing to do with business.

a lack of health and safety

If people are concerned that their safety is in danger, then they may seek employment elsewhere.

afford to move

Yea, she was lucky in that regard.

have her education paid for

Obviously, what the Russian’s taught, was wrong. Thus everything she learned, was wrong. Thus it was based off her intelligence.

could you really blame people for not wanting to be stuck in dead end jobs

Yes, if they’re content with it.

because they didn’t have the opportunity to get a decent education

This is the land of opportunity.

And low-payed undesirable jobs are the essential ones

They’re jobs that need to be done, surely.

if they got paid in relation to the effort put in

As decided by whom?

were afforded the dignity they deserve

People create and maintain their own dignity. I shall not be conned into giving somebody something that is theirs to earn.

rather than being sneered down on

I don’t see many people sneering. I’m quite happy that there are people cleaning the bathrooms and not I that must do it.

who got mother and father to buy them into universities

So you’re now passing a negative judgment on people who’s parents are successful?

Are you gonna say why? Or is it, because it just is?

Why? I’ve explained why.

those people aren’t in the position to judge what a job is worth fairly

They’re the employers, they call the shots. The more they pay, the more people with ability will seek employment from them. Why do you think more people with ability become doctors than burger flippers?

An employer has responsibilities as well as rights

I agree, it is their responsibility to run a profitable business, to pay their workers their paychecks that they agreed to, and to (in the case of a corporation) pay their stockholders.

but then I guess “responsibility” is a word alien to libertarians

Not so, we fully believe in personal responsibility, just not social. And, as a counter to that. I guess “intelligence” is a word alien to communists.

If people could decide

They can by not paying to see them.

People don’t get to think how much they’re worth- they don’t have a say.

The people always have a say. I feel that hitting a home run takes much more ability than chopping down trees, now, not saying that the lumberjack is unintelligent, or unimportant (I’d probably say he’s more so) but obviously, people feel the same way as I.

How is it the opposite of libertarianism? And you’re just saying that you like libertarianism, not why it would be superior to anything. Nothing you’ve said even suggests that libertarianism would work, and there’s certainly nothing there that argues against communism. What has tax on private companies got to do with communism, seeing as how neither concept even has place in communism?

Libertarianism = Low government interference and large personal rights.
Communism = High gov. interference and involvement and low personal rights.

Nothing you say to me suggests communism could work either.

I’d imagine common sense.

I’d think when I got coffee it would be hot is common sense as well, but look at all those lawsuits McDonald’s has had cause people burned themselves on their coffee. Nothing is common sense anymore, unfortunately.

free of need

If you have a roof over your head, and food to eat. Congratulations, you are, by the definition, free of need. But would you be happy with a little shack with some bread and water everyday?

are just greedy

As decided by whom? Who decides what a person needs? I could say that I “need” a yacht in order not to feel inadequate compared to people who do. And you know what, I would be right.

Money for the sake of having money

Money for the sake of life.

Diamonds dug out of the ground by slaves

If the diamonds are certified, they are not blood diamonds.
And I don’t see how that’s the rich’s fault.

If they’re living beyond their means and yet still haven’t reached a living wage then obviously they aren’t being provided with the necessary means.

They have reached a living wage, just not the life they want. If you’re making 50k a year, you shouldn’t be trying to buy a 700k house. Are you saying we should start paying people based on want?

And it’s just not that easy to up and get a job

Look in the paper, there are plenty of places looking to hire.

Which has society had more of a role in deciding-
The wages paid as set by bosses.
The taxes and regulations as set by democratically elected political parties.

Trick question, the bosses set the price, but the employee has a choice not to work for that price if they think they can make more elsewhere.

by democratically elected political parties that are elected by a majority of the minority.

 
Flag Post

Enigmocracy

You are forced to work or you will die of starvation. Therefore, corporations force you to work “at the point of a gun”. The phrase “at the point of a gun” does not prove anything.

Wow… yea ok your logic is flawless. You are free to farm food yourself, or start your own business. But wait, if you start your own business, then you depend on society to buy your products as a business… so that means that society is holding you at the point of a gun. Thanks for clearing that one up.

before you read The Communist Manifesto

I did read it. I found it boring and full of lies.

“Help! Help! My house is on fire!”
“Do you have to money to pay us?”
“No! It should be simple human decency for you to come save my life and property! It’s your job!”
“Sorry, we only save people that can afford it. click”

Why should I have to pay for you’re house, and protection if it catches on fire?
If people, want to voluntarily put their lives at stake if they see your house on fire, they’re free to.

No normal person

If you are a prime example of what is normal, then I surely am not. And glad of it.

80-hour workweeks?

that people chose to work

Children in Sweatshops?

That the parent’s had the children work in. It’s not like they kidnapped them and said “You make shoes now.”

Suppression of worker’s unions

How were they suppressed?

Education only provided to those who can afford it?

So everything should be given away free then to anyone who wants it?

A meat-packing industry with absolutely no FDA standards?

If people feel that they are getting sick due to the meat of a company, they’re free to shop elsewhere.

My point was the absolute disregard for human rights

No, by limiting the employment rights of employers you are limiting their human rights.

I heard there was industrial growth under Hilter too.

There was, your point?

The word individual has no meaning.

Wait, I’m sorry, what?

Read Politics and the English Language

Is that a book, or a sad attempt at an insult?

And I see nothing wrong for defending the populace as a whole rather than the upper-class.

I’m not strictly defending the upper-class; I’m defending the basic human rights of everyone.

No part of libertarianism is logical.

It’s the only thing that’s logical. It doesn’t live off the basis of “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. It doesn’t punish ability.

“Taxes are theft”.

What are they then? Uncle Sam quietly asking you for a donation. And the guns he’ll send after you if you don’t pay are just for decoration?

Communism probably can’t work without a government

It can’t work period.

There’s nothing to regulate and unify it.

They’ll regulate themselves.

Why is Marx wrong?

I’m glad you asked. Marx believed that if a worker produced something for $75, and someone sold it for $100, the extra $25 belonged to the worker. That being the case, if someone sold it for $50, would the worker owe the seller $25?

 
Flag Post
EDIT: Christ, this _is_ taking forever. And most of it is just replying to arguments you've already posted, and my subsequent arguments already ignored. And it's not even relevant to communism. What I propose is this- consolidate your argument into a coherant stand alone post, and why it means Communism can't work- and I'll reply to the thing as a whole. Does that sound fair, anyone? It can't carry on like it is. That's if you wanna carry on, I won't be a d*ck and say it's a debate "victory" or anything if you don't- it's a lot of hassle, I know :) Don't omnislash- how am I meant to reply when you've taken individual sentences out of context, often completely misunderstood, and replied with "No it's true!" or "No it's not!" and nothing of substance, and just flat out ignored chunks of the post? I'll give it a go, but it's gonna take forever. To make it easy to follow I'll attempt to group your comments into coherant points (don't expect miracles), then give my opinion on them. bq. But it’s true. bq. For stealing money from you. Your argument (Correct me if I get it wrong): Taxation is thievery. I'm still waiting to hear what that has to do with Communism, but whatever. Mine: The idea of ownership is one of society and enforced by the state/the law. The idea of money is one of society and enforced by the state. The concept of thievery is one that relies on the idea of ownership, and thievery is when someone takes something that lawfully belongs to another- which tax money doesn't. It lawfully belongs to the state. Is it thievery? My answer no. Is it justifiable, lawful or not? The state can't run on nothing- the services it provides and the framework of society it upholds, which provides the basis for all business and for all life in society, need funds. The very system that provides and upholds the concept of money has a right to that money as long as the system is kept in place democratically. A person can't just choose to opt out of society and taxation in the same way they can't just choose to opt out of the law- everyone takes advantage of the system in place, so in some ways even less than they can opt out of law. If they didn't, the point would be moot because they wouldn't own things or money. So... yes. It is justifiable. bq. I didn’t think ownership and thievery were difficult ideas to understand, but apparently they are for you. I understand them, they just don't exist in Communism... This is in reply to the quote below- if I put it above, the quote won't work, but it does pasted below... odd: In communism there is no government. Private property just isn't a concept. And it isn't stealing- it's a completely different system and can't be judged by the rules of the system of your choice. bq. Yes, I forgot that in a communist society there is such thing as private property, since the government steals it "for the people". bq. So the person who develops a way to save hundreds of man hours and produces the same amount of items as someone who takes longer to do it should be payed the same? “Work” is relative. You’d have to define it somehow, and once you do you realize that that’s how people are payed in factories anyway. Does the person who develops the idea then go on to make all of those items himself/herself? Production is a team effort, and when all put in the same amount of hours into that production they all deserve the rewards equally. Do you play any online MMOs? Well, I used to play WoW- in those teams there are one or two people who do most of the damage, but that's their role- others have different roles, and the team wouldn't work without them all working together and all deserve the "loot" equally. bq. That’s the only way to judge how much you’re worth. Everyone feels that they should make hundreds of thousands a year, but society doesn’t think so. It isn't "society" choosing wages- it's the few, the bosses. It's not a democratic process. bq. Who do you think should decide what’s fair? People are payed by ability. People are paid what their bosses _choose_ to pay them... bq. Wrong: Boston Latin School in Boston, Mass. is the oldest public school in America. According to wikipedia, for educating the "sons of the Boston Elite". Also, according to it's history, it was funded with tax money. With even the few public schools reserved for the elite, and funded with taxpayers money, it contradicts your own argument twice (that I've found!). bq. They were making more in the industrial revolution than in any time in history. Yes, by today’s standards they were working in horrible conditions and for little pay, however, for the time they were the best jobs in the world. They were making fantastic money, in great conditions for the time. No they weren't- they were the only jobs on offer for most people, not the best ones by any means. This is like, highscool history stuff. http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/IndustrialRevolution/workingconditions.htm bq. The price of private schools would go down if competition were included. There is almost no competition in private schools because yes, they are more expensive and thus people go to the public schools which force others to pay for their children’s education. Take out the public schools and turn them into private, you’d have schools competing for your dollar. They’d be bringing their costs down as low as possible and hiring the best teachers available. No they wouldn't- the majority can't just move to where the school they want to go to is. And people, at the minute, judge private schools not on costs but on results- and by lowering costs you're gonna be lowering the amount the school has to pay for the education to get those results, and ones that get good results can afford to charge more. So you'd end up with cheap, rubbish ones that there's no guarantee everyone would be able to afford anyway and expensive good ones reserved for the elite, as it is now. bq. They taught them morals, that most people accept such as not to kill people in cold blood, not to steal (obviously the politicians never learned those lessons) Early education for a small minority of the poor was mostly funded by the church. It wasn't just religion that they taught, it was an education. But it was only for a small minority- it took taxation and the state to get the majority into education, which was the point. Not sure how you interpreted what I said but it reads pretty simply to me. bq. The church never takes your money at the point of a gun, they ask for voluntary donations. And voluntary donations weren't enough. bq. Yes, it does. There is no reason you can’t read a book on physics and learn it if you’re intelligent enough. Very little I’ve learned was taught to me in school, if I wanted to know something, I taught it to myself. So who's gonna teach you to read, give you access to these books, pay for you to be able sit around and learn all day rather than work? Who's gonna give you diplomas and A-Levels to put on your CV? bq. But that’s not the point. The point is, I agree. Look at Einstein, most intelligent man… ever, and he got C’s and D’s in school. So what does that say about your intelligence/education argument? What do you even mean by that? That a person doesn't require an education? This line of discussion came from your comment of bq. the only thing that matters is education. So I don't even know what you're trying to say, now. bq. They’re in business to make money. Yes, _not_ to run a society.... bq. And that’s a bad thing? Yes, yes it is. bq. Who then pays his employees With a small fraction of the money generated by their labour as much, but usually more, than his. bq. such as? http://fading-hope.blog-city.com/modern_slavery.htm Slavery and sweatshops. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/opinion/15wed1.html Health and safety http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2005/Jan-Feb/Lead_Jan-Feb05.htm "Many workers labor 12 to 14 hours a day for $50 a month in sweatshops where unions are forbidden and working conditions are unregulated." Underpaid workers etc etc. All the things I went on to mention _in that same sentence_. bq. That’s not business, slavery has nothing to do with business. What? Why? Business is about making as much money as possible- slavery is the way a lot of businesses do that, either slavery through debt bondage, or because the company controls all the jobs in an area and so can do what it likes- wage slavery, etc. Government regulation prevents this in instances where the government actually regulates, where they don't it's rife. bq. If people are concerned that their safety is in danger, then they may seek employment elsewhere. Not that simple. Been said before, I don't want to keep saying it but you just keep ignoring it. bq. Yea, she was lucky in that regard. So luck, not ability. bq. Obviously, what the Russian’s taught, was wrong. Thus everything she learned, was wrong. Thus it was based off her intelligence. According to the front of my "Atlas Shrugged", Rand left Russia at 12, got educated, then furthered her education by voluntarily going back to Russia. And to say that education in Russia is "wrong"? Does Russia do a different, wrong Maths to the rest of us? Are their ABCs the "wrong" ones? bq. Yes, if they’re content with it. Contentedness has nothing to do with it- necessity has everything to do with it. bq. This is the land of opportunity. Sure... whatever you say.... bq. They’re jobs that need to be done, surely. They need to be done, they don't need to be paid so low. bq. As decided by whom? Society, democratically. Most definately not the people who profit from their undervaluing (which I've said before...)
 
Flag Post

The idea of ownership has nothing to do with the state, but it is enforced by law. The idea of ownership is, I bought/created this, it is mine, leave it alone.
The idea of money is a physical form of man’s work and labor. It was created in order to make trade easier, let me explain:

Man 1 creates shoes
Man 2 creates hats
Man 3 creates gloves

Man 1 wants a hat from Man 2. In a classic barter system, Man 1 would have to convince Man 2 that his shoes were worth as much as his hat, and they would trade like that, 1 hat for 1 pair of shoes. But what if Man 2 didn’t want Man 1’s shoes, he wanted Man 3’s gloves. No trade could have taken place, thus, money was created. So Man 1 could trade an item of currency to Man 2 that could buy him a pair of Man 3’s gloves. But that is based off the assumption that each man will back up the currency with a product of their work. That being said, money is not enforced by the state, but the workers and producers themselves.

The concept of thievery is one that relies on the idea of ownership, and thievery is when someone takes something that lawfully belongs to another- which tax money doesn’t. It lawfully belongs to the state.

What you are saying here, is that nothing really belongs to anyone. By saying that money, which is a manifestation of man’s work and ability, doesn’t belong to them; you are in a sense, saying that men exists solely for each other and the State, that nobody exists for themselves.

The state can’t run on nothing

I agree. But the State doesn’t produce anything either, thus you could say that it’s a parasite.

The very system that provides and upholds the concept of money has a right to that money as long as the system is kept in place democratically.

But they don’t uphold the concept of money, the worker and producer do.

I understand them, they just don’t exist in Communism…

Which is the problem. We live our lives based on rewards and punishments. Your rewards in a capitalist system are things and money to buy those things. You get those rewards by having great ability and intelligence.

Communism though, seems to crush intelligence and ability. They do seem to adopt “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” You said you read Atlas Shrugged, then you should know how this worked out.

In communism there is no government. Private property just isn’t a concept. And it isn’t stealing- it’s a completely different system and can’t be judged by the rules of the system of your choice.

If there is no government then who runs things? You keep talking about “elected officials” and such, but you say there is no government.

There is a huge problem with no Private Property. Take this for an example.

There is a beach. The entire beach is public property. Someone likes a spot on a beach so he sits there. Nobody else can sit there, since he is there, correct? Now, if he likes that spot enough, he could pay somebody to sit there, in his place when he’s not there. Thus, when he comes back, the person merely gives him his seat back. It doesn’t seem like much, but that spot, essentially turned into private property.

Does the person who develops the idea then go on to make all of those items himself/herself? Production is a team effort, and when all put in the same amount of hours into that production they all deserve the rewards equally.

So does the person with ability not get rewarded for his ingenuity? Going by “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”, for his ingenuity, he would be punished.

Do you play any online MMOs? Well, I used to play WoW- in those teams there are one or two people who do most of the damage, but that’s their role- others have different roles, and the team wouldn’t work without them all working together and all deserve the “loot” equally.

As did I. And I understand your point. Apply it to a assembly line. One person’s job is to attach the doors, the next persons is to put on the steering wheel. And I agree, they all do equal work. But what if one person found a way to save the company hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Would he not deserve to be rewarded more for the extra work he put into the thoughts?

It isn’t “society” choosing wages- it’s the few, the bosses. It’s not a democratic process.

But it is by society casting their dollar vote.

Also, according to it’s history, it was funded with tax money

Which means it was a public school, which means that public schools were available for use, when you said there were not. I don’t see how I was contradicting myself.

No they weren’t- they were the only jobs on offer for most people, not the best ones by any means. This is like, highscool history stuff.

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future”

You must remember high school history, it’s amazing how things can be skewed by how they’re told.

I just copied this off a Wikipedia page for “Factory life during the industrial revolution” It’s talking about Britain, but the point still holds:

“In the 1820s, income levels for most workers began to improve, and people adjusted to the different circumstances and conditions. By that time, Britain had changed forever. The economy was expanding at a rate that was more than twice the pace at which it had grown before the Industrial Revolution. Although vast differences existed between the rich and the poor, most of the population enjoyed some of the fruits of economic growth.”

by lowering costs you’re gonna be lowering the amount the school has to pay for the education to get those results,

doesn’t businesses operate this way? competition lowers prices and increases the quality of the products produced. Then, more money is paid to the workers so the competitor doesn’t offer them more. If it works in businesses, it should work in schools. After all, they’re in the business of teaching children.

Early education for a small minority of the poor was mostly funded by the church.

The church would teach anyone that came seeking enlightenment.

It wasn’t just religion that they taught, it was an education.

Isn’t this the same church that killed people for saying the Earth was round, or that we orbited around the Sun? (I said the church taught morals, I never said they listened to them themselves.)

And voluntary donations weren’t enough.

Yet, to this day, they still rely on voluntary donations.

So who’s gonna teach you to read, give you access to these books, pay for you to be able sit around and learn all day rather than work? Who’s gonna give you diplomas and A-Levels to put on your CV?

This is the most charitable place in the world, I’m sure you could find someone to teach you for free. And if you can’t, take some of your wages and pay somebody to.

the only thing that matters is education.

Ok, I see the confusion. I mistyped, my mistake. I meant intelligence.

With a small fraction of the money generated by their labour as much, but usually more, than his.

Without the “bosses” work, there wouldn’t even be jobs for them.

Business is about making as much money as possible

I agree. However slavery infringes on basic human rights. Slavery was originally going to be outlawed in the constitution, but a last minute decision to ensure that the southern states would sign made them pull it out.

Not that simple. Been said before, I don’t want to keep saying it but you just keep ignoring it.

And you keep ignoring the fact that people who don’t like the conditions where they work are free to seek employment elsewhere.

So luck, not ability.

Luck in the ability to get out. Not her overall ability.

According to the front of my “Atlas Shrugged”, Rand left Russia at 12, got educated, then furthered her education by voluntarily going back to Russia. And to say that education in Russia is “wrong”? Does Russia do a different, wrong Maths to the rest of us? Are their ABCs the “wrong” ones?

The philosophies and living style that the Russian’s taught was wrong, it’s hard to screw up the ABC’s and Math.

They need to be done, they don’t need to be paid so low.

I fail to see the need of paying a job such as cleaning toilets as much as a job that takes more ability.