Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not sure why there should ever be a legal obligation to provide for anyone other than yourself. There should be a duty of love to provide for family, close friends and people you know and deem worthy of your support. Before you drag taxes and roads into the conversation, as is the old standby, remember taxes do support the individual taxed along with others who are taxed as well.
However, forced income redistribution does not bring benefit to the people who thrive, it only brings it to those who do not. If I want to dole out charity; which I do to groups like the VA, St Jude and some others, that is my business. But, why should the government get to take my money and hand it out beyond my sphere of concern? I support equal opportunity to pursue happiness, but not any form of equality of outcome guarantee. I have never met a hard working, successful, self employed and self sufficient person who supported socialism. But I sure have met a ton of lazy, unemployed and dependent folks who are all for it.
First it depends on what you consider to be "socialism."
If you mean an attempt at equality of outcomes, or even "From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need" thinking...that isn't realistic and it's just not going to happen.
I can only go at some people asserting that liberals, and especially establishment moderates like Biden, are in favor of "socialism." As though capitalism does not enrich them? They would never abandon it, that's crazy talk. It's not gonna happen, it is a straw man. Or to quote the movie, Clue, which I have always loved, "Communism was just a red herring!" Well, communism and socialism are not the exact same thing, but I see tons of people talking as though they are, and as though furthermore liberalism is synonymous with the two words as well, which is also incorrect. It's nothing but a boogeyman.
But if you mean the kind of social programs that many liberals want, being only supported by lazy, unemployed and dependent types? Oh buddy. Well, *raises hand* I'm here to break your rule. I support a lot of social programs, but contained within an overall framework of capitalism and democracy. I don't believe in all-or-nothing, or slippery slope scaremongering. I think that we can have BALANCE, if we were to try, where we did not let Americans suffer and starve and struggle, but where likewise ambitious Americans could rise to prosperity and beyond. I believe we could have the best of it all, if people would let it happen.
And I support that because I DO think that it would benefit us all. I think that every genius artist or writer who did not have to spend their lives doing pointless paper shuffling or work that could easily be automated, just in order to feed themselves, would contribute more to society if free to pursue their passion. Even if life in the early stages was austere, it would be better than them never getting a chance to even begin. I think that there have been so many contributions that have been stifled by the imperative that traps us in lives of meaninglessness. Innovation, entrepreneurship, that cannot get off the ground because you need a payroll job just to have healthcare. And that society in America would be better for us all, with a more secure, educated, healthy population.
And I work full time, make good money, I'm independent and in fact support and help several others who are not, and I pay thousands in taxes every year. If anything, the fact that I have two relatives who have been failed by the repeatedly gutted social welfare programs that remain, who can't survive without help, and I'm the only one who CAN help them, is a big reason why I support some of these things. The only way I can make progress in my own finances, would be to turn my back on a parent and a child. It's a choice I wish I didn't have to make.
However, I'll give one thing to the conservatives....I have trust issues. Bigtime. It's real easy for Democrats to make a lot of big promises when they're campaigning, but then do little or none of them when elected. But Republicans do the same. I have not had lower taxes under conservative leadership, my tax burden has steadily gone up every year regardless. I want accountability for what is done with my tax money. I'd rather see it help my Mom, than some billionaire or bank or corporation.
When I think about this issue, the first thing that pops into my mind is shared housing. I think within 10 years it will be a real thing. I don't see home prices dropping anytime soon. So if you are a young person in your 20s, buying a house at todays pricing is daunting!
So the remedy this, I think banks will start offering "shares" in that 2000 square foot home I the burbs as sole ownership will be a rarity. This is communism.
Equality of outcome is completely unrelated. You may have two entities from a higher socio economic strata combine to buy that 800K house in which they split down the middle. Whereas people from a lower socio economic strata may have to settle for 4 to a home instead of 2.
Thomas Sowell speaks volumes on why equality of outcome is very very difficult to complete. It's a nice thought, but in reality there are too many variables the overcome so more than likely, it will continue to be a pipe dream. Communism on the other hand is very achievable and I see the younger generation embracing it whereas the older generation is happy to keep it at arms length.
When I think about this issue, the first thing that pops into my mind is shared housing. I think within 10 years it will be a real thing. I don't see home prices dropping anytime soon. So if you are a young person in your 20s, buying a house at todays pricing is daunting!
So the remedy this, I think banks will start offering "shares" in that 2000 square foot home I the burbs as sole ownership will be a rarity. This is communism.
Equality of outcome is completely unrelated. You may have two entities from a higher socio economic strata combine to buy that 800K house in which they split down the middle. Whereas people from a lower socio economic strata may have to settle for 4 to a home instead of 2.
Thomas Sowell speaks volumes on why equality of outcome is very very difficult to complete. It's a nice thought, but in reality there are too many variables the overcome so more than likely, it will continue to be a pipe dream. Communism on the other hand is very achievable and I see the younger generation embracing it whereas the older generation is happy to keep it at arms length.
Right now, a typical kid just getting out on their own, likely to be either making minimum wage or trying to get through college or both, if they cannot live with a parent, will have to share housing if they RENT and the idea of BUYING anything is a pipe dream they either don't see anywhere in their future, or else think is something they might get to do in their 30s or 40s or beyond if they are very lucky.
Minimum wage will not rent you an efficiency or studio apartment, not here and I hear not in most places. You can rent a room in a shared apartment, though.
Is that communism? I don't think so. I think it's capitalism run amok with zero regulation. It's because real estate investment firms have bought up the properties and the fair market threat of "if no one can afford it, then no one will buy" (where their apartments would stand empty if priced too high) does not control rent inflation because a big company that owns most of the property in town can afford to have some units stand empty if they can keep raising and raising the rent on ALL of them. Because people need somewhere to live and sooner or later, they're gonna find a way to make it work.
They're going to get roommates, they're going to partner up and live together which means more pregnancy in young people who can't afford to be having kids, more people stuck in unhappy relationships (because the alternative is homelessness)...lots of bad outcomes.
Rents need to be regulated to an indexed price that is tied to some combo of the property value of the place and the wages in the region, with big incentives for building housing for any under-served income group. This is far more important than raising minimum wage.
The thing is, ALL of us started out with low wages and sharing apartments or rooms. I don't buy the whole "boo hoo, these poor kids today have it so bad" mantras. I started out sharing an apartment with a friend and then my sister shared one with me. She worked two jobs to afford a dump in a bad part of the city to live. In my area, a small apartment can be gotten for $800 a month. A college graduate should be able to afford $800 on an income of about $40,000 a year. If they aren't making this much with a college degree then shame on them. I wouldn't go to college if I was going to make minimum wage after graduation.
When a kid chooses to go to college and chooses to take out a loan, it behooves them to figure out which career is going to get them a decent job after graduation. Don't take out $100,000 in loans and then graduate with a degree in Greek mythology and expect to get a REAL job. Maybe their parents should be guiding them to research jobs that are in demand?
Also, many young people have apartments with a friend of the same sex (not a romantic partner). I don't buy the excuse that someone has to move in with a partner of the opposite sex in order to afford an apartment. That's just pure BS.
The thing is, ALL of us started out with low wages and sharing apartments or rooms. I don't buy the whole "boo hoo, these poor kids today have it so bad" mantras. I started out sharing an apartment with a friend and then my sister shared one with me. She worked two jobs to afford a dump in a bad part of the city to live. In my area, a small apartment can be gotten for $800 a month. A college graduate should be able to afford $800 on an income of about $40,000 a year. If they aren't making this much with a college degree then shame on them. I wouldn't go to college if I was going to make minimum wage after graduation.
When a kid chooses to go to college and chooses to take out a loan, it behooves them to figure out which career is going to get them a decent job after graduation. Don't take out $100,000 in loans and then graduate with a degree in Greek mythology and expect to get a REAL job. Maybe their parents should be guiding them to research jobs that are in demand?
Also, many young people have apartments with a friend of the same sex (not a romantic partner). I don't buy the excuse that someone has to move in with a partner of the opposite sex in order to afford an apartment. That's just pure BS.
I started out on my own because I was not lucky enough to have a sister or anything. And as an 18 year old woman, that meant that low quality older men (multiple divorces, abusive, drug addicts, people without decent jobs) were drooling to come barging in and take over my life. Yeah, I "shared" my first apartment shortly after I got it. With men I wish I'd never given the time of day. Because although it was easier than it is for kids now, to survive on my own, in 1997, it still wasn't easy.
I did not have any female friends around who would share an apartment with me. I was tossed out on my own as soon as I graduated high school. I did not know how to drive, and I had a minimum wage job, which at the time, paid me $4.75/hour. How I managed to "bootstraps" my life, since you love the concept so much, was I put up with an abusive partner. (Actually wait, I'm wrong, I DID have one female friend, who DID move in with me, for a few months back then...because otherwise she had nowhere else to go. She didn't pay rent.)
College? I couldn't even think about college then. I had no idea how I'd manage to even go to college. Rich people's kids get to go to college. (I did eventually go, but not until I was 24 and working my way up in the world a little. I still had to take out loans.)
I lived in places that were infested with roaches, with rats, with fleas. I had family members come move to where I was at and try to "help" me but only make my life a lot worse. I had "friends" become "roommates" who flaked out on the rent and it destroyed our friendships.
But I'm not really just thinking about my life path. I am also thinking of my 19 year old son. He has been trying to find the right meds for his recently diagnosed schizophrenia. He is hard to live with, sometimes a danger to himself. He tried to do college, but couldn't manage that. Living with others is a problem. All it takes is one bad day, and no one will want to put up with him in their home. I have to move out of state to care for an elderly relative, and I can't take him with me. And no, "just get on disability!" is not a working solution here, nor are there homes for those kinds of people to just check into. What I wouldn't give to find a tiny closet of an efficiency apartment he could afford to live in, on minimum wage??
Those who don't deal with certain problems just assume there's some easy solution that others are too lazy or something to figure out. Get upset when it's like, "No, no there is actually a PROBLEM here, for which there is no relief, and no snap suggestion you can make about what that person should simply do." Just gotta have your just world fallacies, that everyone gets what they deserve and deserves what they get.
Also, you're talking about after college...again, not everyone can even GO to college, college costs a LOT of money, and so...what, if a person is not, say, smart enough to get through college for instance, or has other issues, and no family or friends to room with them, then they should die in a ditch, or what?
Some actually argue that once upon a time, a single minimum wage laborer income was enough to support a FAMILY on...to buy a home, raise kids and so forth. I'm not sure about that, and I'm not suggesting that's how it should be. But one person should be able to find a very small, austere and frugal way, to live independently on full time/minimum wage.
You know, this right here really brings some things to light for me, your response.
It's like arguing back to an impoverished person, "I don't buy it. What about your trust fund??" and then getting mad when they call you privileged. Unreal.
For the tyrant in communism distributing foods to the people, yes it means the same thing. No one gets more food than anybody else. And the military distributes the rations of foods to the community people as needed. There is no such thing as profit making for the business owner.
Equality of outcome, or equity, is a goal of communism, as made famous by the latter half of Marx's saying, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
But is equality of outcome the same as communism? Would pursuing policies to bring about equality of outcome have the same effect as communist policies?
I am inclined to say, to an extent but it would not nearly be as oppressive or controlling as communism. Equality of outcome says nothing about ownership, and would most likely rely upon transfer payments rather than expropriation to "level the scoreboard". Private property would be allowed but any income generated from it would be heavily taxed.
The inherent problem with equality of outcome is that it runs completely contrary to the nature of life. Life - all life - must have positive motivation to exert effort towards a goal. We call it work. A wolf pack might call it hunting an elk. Humans deal no better with exerting a lot of effort towards a goal only to have the fruits of their labor taken from them than anything else would.
Every communist state that has existed in history hasn't had equality of outcome. Invariably there is an inner circle of the party that grows wealthy and everyone is left on the outside of that fence watching everyone else play baseball.
The inherent problem with equality of outcome is that it runs completely contrary to the nature of life. Life - all life - must have positive motivation to exert effort towards a goal. We call it work. A wolf pack might call it hunting an elk. Humans deal no better with exerting a lot of effort towards a goal only to have the fruits of their labor taken from them than anything else would.
Every communist state that has existed in history hasn't had equality of outcome. Invariably there is an inner circle of the party that grows wealthy and everyone is left on the outside of that fence watching everyone else play baseball.
I agree, but I want to go a step further...
To the best of my knowledge, it's pretty hard to find ANY model of governance or large scale society that does not wind up with a few who are obscenely wealthy, because they exploit the many. Whether they take "rents" or "tithes" directly as in feudalism, passing it up and up the chain until it hits the level of monarchy...or wealth is all taken and supposedly "fairly" redistributed (but of course, never is) or what we've got now with our capitalist system. It gives us a pretty convincing illusion of freedom and opportunity for everyone to prosper, but in reality, there are a lot of smoke and mirrors exploitative mechanisms in place to keep generation after generation of families stuck in poverty. If they started there, it's where they are very likely to stay. But the system we have now gives us license to say, "well it's their own fault. No more than they deserve."
In any event, humanity in general seems to operate on the concept of the few treating the many like livestock, the value of our lives, the hours of our time, being the product, every activity generating more wealth that flows upward to the top, leaving us only enough to get by on, or maybe to inch a little closer to prosperity, but never to really make it. But it is vastly more likely and easy, to tumble into poverty, than it is to bootstraps or "hard work" your way to wealth.
Now I don't kid myself into thinking that the world might be changed and become a utopia, we're probably more likely to destroy our planet and species than to ever achieve that. I'm willing to grudgingly accept that to some extent, it's just the way it is (the song will be in my head now)... But I do think that America COULD and SHOULD consider just how low we want to let the most vulnerable of our citizens fall, before a safety net is there to catch them. Do we want shack cities built out of trash, like they have in third world countries? With toxic water and stick limbed children, starving to death in filth? Are we OK with that kind of thing becoming the landscape we live in? Pretending we're not, most of us, just one major health event away from joining the ranks of the poor?
I'm not OK with that.
I am definitely all about there being meaningful incentives to work, but I don't believe that it should be quite to the extent of having a gun to our heads, nor do I believe that those who cannot climb the ladder should be unable to survive at the bottom, with even a little dignity.
Where I differ from most of the liberals that I know, is that I don't believe that giving people free money, UBI, or even higher wages, is the ultimate solution here. I think that unless and until a few exploitative industries are reined in with some regulations, it wont matter how much money people get, if it's immediately squeezed out of them for expenses they have to pay, just to survive. THAT is what I believe needs to change, right now. Starting with housing and healthcare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
at some people asserting that liberals, and especially establishment moderates like Biden, are in favor of "socialism." As though capitalism does not enrich them? They would never abandon it, that's crazy talk. It's not gonna happen, it is a straw man. Or to quote the movie, Clue, which I have always loved, "Communism was just a red herring!" Well, communism and socialism are not the exact same thing, but I see tons of people talking as though they are, and as though furthermore liberalism is synonymous with the two words as well, which is also incorrect. It's nothing but a boogeyman. 
