but if our motivation was advancing ourselves as a race with every person willing to do his share of work for the greater good, then it would be a different kettle of fish.
but every time you take a headache pill, eat vitamins, have an operation, you are in fact "making people better".
You've just described choice. I can choose to do any one of those things. Or not to do them. The quote that I referenced was about a government making those choices for you.
You can tell people that eating three serves of fast food a day is bad, they start eating healthy food.
You can tell people any number of things. Some will listen, some will not. My problem is when you start trying to enforce "corrective" behavior using taxes or other punishments. It's not your business to correct my bad lifestyle choices. Live and let live.
not ALL people are greedy self serving animals.
No, there are a few examples. Mother Teresa comes to mind. But by and large I stand by my remark.
Okay, then explain how the Tibetan people were quite happy living for centuries as a peaceful state, helping others and living lives that were focused around cherishing all that is alive and enjoying the simple beauty of their world?
Wow, what have you been smoking? The historical record on Tibet is muddled but there's a fair amount of evidence out there to suggest that it wasn't exactly a peaceful paradise of human dignity prior to the Chinese conquest. No doubt some of that is propaganda (history being written by the victors and all) but I very much doubt that your example of the other extreme reflects reality either.
The ideals of a communist state SHOULD be all about COMMUNITY. Each person shares the combined requirements of the overall population and it's shared out equally
And the ideals of our state are individual freedoms and liberty.
A perfect implementation would be fantastic. I need a car, I go pick up a new car, it's free. The mechanic who has a sore back goes to a doctor who for no fee directs him to a physiotherapist, who then for free goes to a mechanic to change the oil in his car
And if you can just go pick up a car or see a doctor for free, where's your incentive to work? I'm sure some people would be altruistic enough to work for free -- but many (the majority?) would not. How do you intend to solve that problem? Put a gun to their head and make them work? That seems to be SOP for most Communist states that we've seen up until this point.
What's the point of trying to pick up attractive women when 50% of them turn you down?
It generally doesn't take 40+ hours a week for 52 weeks of the year to try and pick up attractive woman. And I've never had 50% of them reject me, what are you doing wrong?
In socialism you have a guarantee of a certain level of blessing.
Yeah, like the privilege to wait in line for twelve hours to buy toilet paper.
In pure capitalism you have NO guarantee of blessings. But you have a chance of becoming a brazzilionaire.
It has nothing to do with being a 'brazzilionaire'. My combined tax burden across state/federal/local/property/sales/etc is close to 50%. I make a whooping $30,000. I just want to keep some more of that money. What's wrong with that desire?
The fear of socialism in the states confuses me, it isn't complicated and it is already partially implemented.
It's a fear of losing freedom and having individuality subordinated by the state.
It all comes down to this. Do you think everyone deserves service-x?
No, I don't think anybody deserves any service they aren't willing or able to pay for. I'll await my troll mod now for having the audacity to say that out loud.
Setting the cost of a bus ride to a dollar or even 50c seems like a no brainer.
It seems like nothing of the sort to me. If bus service is so cheap then why can't those who rely upon it pay the full cost of receiving it? Why should I have to subsidize it?
Speeding isn't a 'vice'. At a certain point (not usually the posted speed limit but that's another discussion) excessive speed endangers the drivers around you. Smoking and drinking does either. It only harms the person partaking in it.
Please tell me why it should be an objective of government to protect people from themselves?
If you made that salary in my state and combined it with home ownership you'd likely be paying out >50% of your income in taxes. What's the point of working hard when you lose half of the fruits of your labor in taxes?
Communism is not compatible with individual liberty and freedom. Communism implies the subordination of the individual to the state. In a true communist society there is no concept of private ownership. All assets, including human capital are owned by the state. If you don't see how much a system is inherently incompatible with freedom, liberty and individuality then we are probably too far apart to have a meaningful dialog on the issue.
Yes, because history has taught us time and again that when left to their own accords, the private industry can police itself.
It policies itself better than government in many respects. If you ran a private business in the manner that the US Government (or my state government for that matter) is run it would be bankrupt in short order and cease operating.
Funny how every one of those things you listed with the exception of the military can be done cheaper and more effectively by the private sector.
DOT = employees getting paid above market wages to hold up "stop/slow" signs.
City water utility = Meter readers getting paid above market wages to drive a car and punch numbers into a PDA
FDA = Yeah, that's worked out real well. I trust the UL much more than I trust the FDA. I've yet to have a UL approved appliance burn my house down. I have had FDA approved food put me in the hospital.
The internet, yeah it was partially developed by DOD and then properly turned over to the private sector when the commercial uses become apparent. You think we would have seen the rush of online innovation if the government was still in charge?
The concept isn't evil at all, but in most cases, the implementation seems to be.
That's because at our core we are greedy self-serving animals. The only difference between us and the apes is that we horde money instead of food. You'll never change this. Attempts to do so ignore our biology and invariably produce an even more insidious evil than that which they set out to correct.
To quote a character who is fairly popular around these parts, "They will swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that."
Yes, there's the obvious answer that I could venture out for myself, and take all the cash for myself. The problem is that this is a) inefficient, and b) not my temperament.
Adobe, Amazon.com, Apple, eBay, Google, Yahoo!, JPMorgan, and Playboy are all probably really saddened by the fact that they didn't come up with this themselves quicker.
I'm not going to stand by and let you insult Playboy by lumping them in with the likes of Adobe, Apple and JPMorgan;)
I fail to see what is so evil about socialist/communist ideas. They don't work in practice but that doesn't make them evil.
Taking the fruits of your neighbors labor to supply for yourself would be called stealing if it was done directly and without the government as a middle man.
Re: gun ownership. Most states require that firearms be registered
No they don't. You must be living in New Jersey or Illinois if you think that's the norm. In the vast majority of this country you can buy a firearm simply by completing the required background check at point of sale. No registration, no permit to own, no classes to attend, no waiting period, nothing. You just buy it and walk out with it.
Slashdot Mirror
If we don't like the people in charge, we have a very direct and focused way of taking them out of office: the ballot box.
No you don't. Ever heard of gerrymandering?
but if our motivation was advancing ourselves as a race with every person willing to do his share of work for the greater good, then it would be a different kettle of fish.
If wishes were horses.....
but every time you take a headache pill, eat vitamins, have an operation, you are in fact "making people better".
You've just described choice. I can choose to do any one of those things. Or not to do them. The quote that I referenced was about a government making those choices for you.
You can tell people that eating three serves of fast food a day is bad, they start eating healthy food.
You can tell people any number of things. Some will listen, some will not. My problem is when you start trying to enforce "corrective" behavior using taxes or other punishments. It's not your business to correct my bad lifestyle choices. Live and let live.
not ALL people are greedy self serving animals.
No, there are a few examples. Mother Teresa comes to mind. But by and large I stand by my remark.
Okay, then explain how the Tibetan people were quite happy living for centuries as a peaceful state, helping others and living lives that were focused around cherishing all that is alive and enjoying the simple beauty of their world?
Wow, what have you been smoking? The historical record on Tibet is muddled but there's a fair amount of evidence out there to suggest that it wasn't exactly a peaceful paradise of human dignity prior to the Chinese conquest. No doubt some of that is propaganda (history being written by the victors and all) but I very much doubt that your example of the other extreme reflects reality either.
The ideals of a communist state SHOULD be all about COMMUNITY. Each person shares the combined requirements of the overall population and it's shared out equally
And the ideals of our state are individual freedoms and liberty.
A perfect implementation would be fantastic. I need a car, I go pick up a new car, it's free. The mechanic who has a sore back goes to a doctor who for no fee directs him to a physiotherapist, who then for free goes to a mechanic to change the oil in his car
And if you can just go pick up a car or see a doctor for free, where's your incentive to work? I'm sure some people would be altruistic enough to work for free -- but many (the majority?) would not. How do you intend to solve that problem? Put a gun to their head and make them work? That seems to be SOP for most Communist states that we've seen up until this point.
What's the point of trying to pick up attractive women when 50% of them turn you down?
It generally doesn't take 40+ hours a week for 52 weeks of the year to try and pick up attractive woman. And I've never had 50% of them reject me, what are you doing wrong?
In socialism you have a guarantee of a certain level of blessing.
Yeah, like the privilege to wait in line for twelve hours to buy toilet paper.
In pure capitalism you have NO guarantee of blessings. But you have a chance of becoming a brazzilionaire.
It has nothing to do with being a 'brazzilionaire'. My combined tax burden across state/federal/local/property/sales/etc is close to 50%. I make a whooping $30,000. I just want to keep some more of that money. What's wrong with that desire?
The fear of socialism in the states confuses me, it isn't complicated and it is already partially implemented.
It's a fear of losing freedom and having individuality subordinated by the state.
It all comes down to this. Do you think everyone deserves service-x?
No, I don't think anybody deserves any service they aren't willing or able to pay for. I'll await my troll mod now for having the audacity to say that out loud.
Setting the cost of a bus ride to a dollar or even 50c seems like a no brainer.
It seems like nothing of the sort to me. If bus service is so cheap then why can't those who rely upon it pay the full cost of receiving it? Why should I have to subsidize it?
Speeding isn't a 'vice'. At a certain point (not usually the posted speed limit but that's another discussion) excessive speed endangers the drivers around you. Smoking and drinking does either. It only harms the person partaking in it.
Please tell me why it should be an objective of government to protect people from themselves?
If you made that salary in my state and combined it with home ownership you'd likely be paying out >50% of your income in taxes. What's the point of working hard when you lose half of the fruits of your labor in taxes?
Communism is not compatible with individual liberty and freedom. Communism implies the subordination of the individual to the state. In a true communist society there is no concept of private ownership. All assets, including human capital are owned by the state. If you don't see how much a system is inherently incompatible with freedom, liberty and individuality then we are probably too far apart to have a meaningful dialog on the issue.
Yes, because history has taught us time and again that when left to their own accords, the private industry can police itself.
It policies itself better than government in many respects. If you ran a private business in the manner that the US Government (or my state government for that matter) is run it would be bankrupt in short order and cease operating.
I opposed the bailouts. We should have let every one of those outfits fail. Socializing failure is never in the national interest.
Who said anything about "taking"? In a truly communist society, people give voluntarily. Furthermore, there is no "government" as you refer to it.
When you find that outside of the ant colony or Borg collective let me know.
Funny how every one of those things you listed with the exception of the military can be done cheaper and more effectively by the private sector.
DOT = employees getting paid above market wages to hold up "stop/slow" signs.
City water utility = Meter readers getting paid above market wages to drive a car and punch numbers into a PDA
FDA = Yeah, that's worked out real well. I trust the UL much more than I trust the FDA. I've yet to have a UL approved appliance burn my house down. I have had FDA approved food put me in the hospital.
The internet, yeah it was partially developed by DOD and then properly turned over to the private sector when the commercial uses become apparent. You think we would have seen the rush of online innovation if the government was still in charge?
Taking someone else's car in exchange for little pieces of green paper would be called stealing if it wasn't backed by the government.
No, because nobody put a rhetorical gun to the sellers head and told him to sell the car or go to jail.
Does calling someone a "fat cat" make it easier for you to rationalize taking their property away from them?
The concept isn't evil at all, but in most cases, the implementation seems to be.
That's because at our core we are greedy self-serving animals. The only difference between us and the apes is that we horde money instead of food. You'll never change this. Attempts to do so ignore our biology and invariably produce an even more insidious evil than that which they set out to correct.
To quote a character who is fairly popular around these parts, "They will swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that."
Would you rather be a random Chinese citizen or a random Cuban citizen?
Cuban. It's easier to float across the Straits of Florida than the Pacific Ocean.
Yes, there's the obvious answer that I could venture out for myself, and take all the cash for myself. The problem is that this is a) inefficient, and b) not my temperament.
Whose fault is that?
Democracy and communism are not mutually exclusive.
Communism and freedom/self-determination are mutually exclusive.
Bullshit.
Presumably they pay you?
As opposed to the capitalist moral morass, where "fair" is whatever you pay for.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessing. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
Adobe, Amazon.com, Apple, eBay, Google, Yahoo!, JPMorgan, and Playboy are all probably really saddened by the fact that they didn't come up with this themselves quicker.
I'm not going to stand by and let you insult Playboy by lumping them in with the likes of Adobe, Apple and JPMorgan ;)
I fail to see what is so evil about socialist/communist ideas. They don't work in practice but that doesn't make them evil.
Taking the fruits of your neighbors labor to supply for yourself would be called stealing if it was done directly and without the government as a middle man.
Re: gun ownership. Most states require that firearms be registered
No they don't. You must be living in New Jersey or Illinois if you think that's the norm. In the vast majority of this country you can buy a firearm simply by completing the required background check at point of sale. No registration, no permit to own, no classes to attend, no waiting period, nothing. You just buy it and walk out with it.