Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Philisophical political thread...

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,600
    Hey, what's philosophy other than heading to conclusions based off patently false premises? Sorry I pointed that out and ruined your fun, I won't do that anymore.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,086
    Good. Appreciate the effort.

    Feel free to go condescendingly point out other people's errors of their way/thinking. I don't really need pointers, I'd prefer discussions.
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; June 25th, 2018 at 03:14 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,086
    Branching from gun thread since socialism really has little to do with guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rare White Ape View Post
    Billi… no. Socialis If m is not about robbing the rich. It’s about paying a percentage of your income (your fair share) in taxation in order to fund the provision of government services… to build a society. Hence the word socialism! The poor don’t get money from the rich, they get it from everyone.

    Chances are that some rich people pay almost zero or an extremely low percentage in tax anyway, because they have the means to manage their money in such a way that they can do it, while still keeping everything perfectly legal and above board. Tax minimisation is not a problem, per se, but people who are well-off have a definite advantage here. And politically, the ones who yell the loudest about how bad socialism is are usually the ones who are the most likely to benefit because the government takes money from revenue and gives it right the fuck back to rich people.

    Outside of welfare and healthcare, who are the ones who get the most from government handouts? Go on, look it up. Where does the overwhelming majority of your government’s non-welfare money go?
    Everyone paying fair share still means the rich pay more than the poor, right?

    Even universal healthcare is 'robbing' from healthy to pay for the sick. Social security is 'robbing' from the working young to pay for old folks. You may political correctly call that paying fair share if you want. In the end, its wealth redistribution.

    I'm not against universal healthcare or social security because I believe it's the right thing to do for us to care for the sick and senior folks.

    However, I'd hate to see people end up feeling too entitled to these benefits.

    Socialism without responsibility will be bad. If you don't take care of your health and your finances when young and expect society to bail you out later, that's just not going to be good for anyone.

    Lastly, why should I trust the government to fairly redistribute our collective wealth? Just as you say, the rich is benefiting under the current system already. Will a more socialist govt really be that mean to the people who actually feed the system? Why would a more socialistic politician be more trustworthy?

    I think we copy the financial model of public radio and tv stations. They have pledge drives to have their listeners or viewers pay for programming. If people value these services, they'll send in money. If your services suck, you can count on shutting down your program. Hopefully in the future we can have to ability to choose which govt services our tax money goes rather than allowing the politician to fight over various versions of partisan budgets...

    Anyway, my point is we need both capitalism and socialism working together. Communist China couldn't have grown this fast without capitalism. USA could not survive the financial meltdown without the socialistic bailouts. Real world works with multiple -isms. Utilize the strengths of various -isms and be careful of the weaknesses.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity View Post
    Everyone paying fair share still means the rich pay more than the poor, right?

    Even universal healthcare is 'robbing' from healthy to pay for the sick. Social security is 'robbing' from the working young to pay for old folks. You may political correctly call that paying fair share if you want. In the end, its wealth redistribution.
    Yes its redistribution of money.

    How about the opposite - what if everyone paid the same amount in tax. Not the same rate, the same amount. Work out the govt expenditure, divide by this by the number of people - bingo. Split the bill equally.
    So lets say $20k each.
    So the single mother with 2 kids - $60k. She gets nothing till she pays here share. Thats fair? Cant afford it - get thrown out of the country.
    Person earning $1 million, hands over $20k and they have paid their part. They still have 980 thousand!

    So an equal split bill is not fair.
    Most people would even say an equal percentage is not fair - the basic cost to live means someone on $30k a year would hurt more losing 10% than someone on $100k. Hence most systems give you a base amount free of tax then a percentage that increases.

    After that you are really just arguing about the fine tuning.
    The system is not meant to be "equal", its meant to be "fair"

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,086
    Didn't get me wrong, I don't really think socialism is unfair. Nor do I think rob from rich to give to the poor is always unfair or even wrong. There's really no need to politically correctly remove the word 'rob' in the description of how wealth is redistributed imho.

    Politicians abusing the system aside, that can happen under any kind of -isms, I just don't think socialism is sustainable long term. Why? Because I fear that sense of entitlement could rob poor folks of their true potential. Socialist programs should only act as safety nets to help people get back on their feet. Not permanent solutions. Of course old and really sick folks who have no chance of ever getting back on their feet are exceptions. The thing I fear the most is universal basic income. I believe longterm welfare will only shackle the poor to be happy to remain 'poor'. This is the kind of thing a socialist govt needs to avoid.

    Of course there are also lots of ways for capitalistic societies to keep the poor working hard and remain poor too.

    These 'unfair' issues all need to be addressed and fixed in order for any kind of -isms to be successful.

    The good thing about capitalism is that it leverages human greed to its advantage. It's little wonder why US had been doing much better than USSR economically... and once China realized this, they ate up capitalism like there's no tomorrow.

    Of course you guys will also name the socialist Northern European nations..., but seriously, when was the last time Nokia made a phone you want to buy? Volvo is also now owned by the Chinese. I suppose IKEA is doing well, but my point is that socialism tend to make people less competitive, less driven.

    Okay, so what if they're less ambitious, at least they are happier? Yeah, they have consistently been rated the happiest nations, but suicide stats don't really reflect that. They're pretty much on par with the US and lots of other European nations had lower suicide rates...
    http://www.indy100.com/article/a-map...JZvUa8KRdZ?amp

    My take is that as we get more socialistic, as govt take care of you more and more and as your 2 feet weaken more and more, people will feel more useless and plunge into depression and suicide.

    Capitalism created automations and socialism is only trying to help by trying to introduce universal income for all... it has certainly good intentions, but I think it will only exacerbate the problem. The only way out is that we innovate the shit out of ourselves to create brand new industries for people to work in..., not just give them hand outs and implicitly tell them that they're useless and no longer needed. Bailouts are definitely necessary during emergencies, but if allowed to go on indefinitely, people will cease to stand on their own feet.
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; July 13th, 2018 at 11:25 AM.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    734
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity View Post
    It's little wonder why US had been doing much better than USSR economically...
    What would that be? The fact that the vast majority of the rest of world's economies were directly arrayed in opposition to the USSR? Or the fact that the United States did not get utterly economically devastated and lose huge amounts of their manpower during the second world war?


    Also: Billi, if you want anyone to even consider trying to get anyone to take you/engage with you seriously, you really need to remove 'politically correct' and all variants thereof from your vocabulary. I get what you're trying to do with it (I think), and its neither funny nor intelligent, and it is at this point, amazingly tiring.
    -Formerly Stabulator

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,086
    I think I pretty much need to remove all words in my vocabulary and smilies in order to not tire most people out here... When IL is low, it won't be easy to find anything humorous at all. That's okay. This is why I started this branch off thread just to avoid tiring people off more in the usual thread...

    Anyway, there can be lots of what if scenarios regarding how USA and USSR would run their courses... perhaps socialism was NOT the main cause of USSR's demise... perhaps dictators just shouldn't pretend to care about the social welfare of its people...

    But then again, the chinese dictators who pretend to be socialists turned their economy around by embracing capitalism. This is undeniable, right? Not sure China can be where it is today if it continues to reject capitalism.

  8. #28
    What does the Bat say? Jason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    2,287
    I wish "wealth redistribution" wasn't such a "bad word". It's part of every day life in so many ways. Every single service provided to the public, whether publicly or privately funded is an example of "wealth redistribution", because not everyone is "paying in" at the same exact rate, and not everyone is "benefiting" at the same exact rate.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,086
    Definitely shouldn't be a bad word. IMHO, no word should be bad. Even "fuck" can be a beautiful thing between 2 lovers!

    Anyway, Gap between rich and poor shouldn't be allowed to grow to our current levels. The bigger the gap, the easier for the system to become unstable.

    On the flipside, we shouldn't completely equalize our pay either. What is equal work? Can we really achieve equal work? So talk of equal pay is non-sense. If you think you're worth it, demand a raise or find your worth else where!

    Even in the star trek universe, we have Captain Picard and Lt. Barkley. They do not do equal work. I doubt they have exact equal pay..., but surely their pay or holodeck credit disparity won't be that great as CEO and common worker of a typical fortune 500 company. We need some sort of hierarchy to have something to aspire to, but we definitely don't need to be totally capitalistic like the Ferengis. I suppose the Borg achieved the perfect socialistic/communistic society, but somehow I doubt most wish to be part of that collective.
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; July 13th, 2018 at 03:43 PM.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,057
    The question is always “how much?”
    We all agree there needs to be some amount of wealth distribution and that some thing need to be treated as essential services and not just for-profit. The issue is the balance.
    Transport, communications, power, water, health - these are things that everyone should have access to them at a reasonable cost.
    The US has put health care out of reach of many. For lots of others it’s cost so much as to significantly impact their finances. That’s not good.

    And I haven’t looked at the suicide numbers for Scandinavia (other than comments on how it goes up in winter and that lack of sun does have a big impact) but it’s hard to argue against the numbers that say that for the majority of people would have a better life in those countries rather than the USA. The rich do very well in the US. For many they would be better off with support or even just a safety net. For those in between, it’s better because those around you have those supports. You are better off if your neighbour is better off.

    And this isn’t just an “ism”. Any system (even no system) can be given a name with “ism” on the end.
    There is no perfect system, even anything we might call the best system needs to adapt with the times and changes in society and technology.
    I think the big challenge of the next 50 years will be adapting to a world where we are trying to achieve a global balance in wealth. Forgot the spread of wealth within a country, how will we cope when the billions in Asia and Africa are wanting the same living standards and wealth that we take for granted. We are already seeing more and more of this with immigration. Want your country to be better, then you need to help your neighbours be better.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •