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'm a middle of the road Democrat (and former Republican). I'm proud to be American and respect our history.
Being on the right means people like Donald Trump represent you, and he doesn't believe that America is great.
Any idea that Democrats and people to the right of center are less than patriotic demonstrates childish, limited wisdom.
That is an age old political trick of the right wing. Paint your political opponents as traitors and subversive to America. Paint your ideology as "American" and "patriotic".... Its an effective strategy and propaganda tool.
I don't trust either but at least with government we have some say in who's running it. In theory we have direct control over our government but we don't get that with big business.
I don't trust either but at least with government we have some say in who's running it. In theory we have direct control over our government but we don't get that with big business.
I wouldn't trust either one either, but government gives "the illusion of choice" unless you're in a direct democracy I suppose. People are "allowed" to pick some person, not even vote on specific issues, who will be in charge of them and make the rules. Those candidates are also chosen by the parties, and they'll often manipulate things to get their person as the nominee.
At least with business, people can vote with their dollars and stop giving them money. The government can just take your stuff or punish you if you stop paying or obeying them.
First, I see we're making a lot of different points all at once, so if you want to just focus on the points you think are most important or fundamental, feel free. I know it can get overwhelming seeing a giant post where you have to respond to every point made. So anyway...
I don't disagree with anything you said. However, that still doesn't mean the best candidate is obligated to do anything. There's a difference between being an uncaring jerk and being a criminal. It isn't a criminal offense to let someone drown, even though you should probably be shunned and criticized to no end for doing that. It's a criminal offense to push someone in and then not help them, because the responsibility is on you for putting them in that situation, not them.
My analogy was only making one point-- that those who own the most superfluous wealth are best equipped to help the poor.
I know it isn't a criminal offense to let someone drown-- that's the problem. It's also why an AnCap society would be even LESS moral than the one we have now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
The thing is, you're in the global 1% if you live in the U.S...so if the principle is that people who own more must give to those who need the money more (correct me if that isn't the principle), then we should be sacrificing most of what we earn to give to people around the world. I'm not accusing you of this, but a lot of people are very quick to defend this idea if they're the ones receiving the money, but not as much when they're the ones being taken from.
I definitely wouldn't be receiving any money, but I can't imagine that I would be expected to sacrifice 'most of what I earn'.
But even if I had to sacrifice my entire paycheck, an egalitarian state would also have to provide me with a lot more-- things like health care, education, housing, child care, electricity, entertainment and food on top of the public services I'm already using... so it's not like I wouldn't be getting anything in return. And to be honest, with all of this talk of needing millions to retire comfortably, I would MUCH rather rest assured in the knowledge that I would be taken care of in my old age than feel like there's no way I'll ever be able to retire comfortably. I personally would gain a lot from knowing my future is secure, even if I had to give up some other things.
I REALLY don't live extravagantly at the moment, so it's hard to imagine my standard of living changing very much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think I get it now. I'd say they work for wealth, which can come in many forms. Money is just a way to represent wealth...so instead of working directly for food, shelter, healthcare, entertainment, schooling, etc., they're given money which is more convenient. People have varying motivations and goals, so some will value money for the options it gives them, or for the material things they've always thought would be cool to have, or the status they get from it...others don't really care and can be happy not achieving much financial success. They might be more motivated to do other things, and that's fine. The personal satisfaction aspect varies as well. It depends on the person's attitude. Some take pride in their job, and others do the bare minimum so they can get the money and go do something else.
People only work for money in a capitalist state because that is how they have been trained to behave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
This is where you're definitely losing me. The USSR was state capitalism? I'm definitely against crony capitalism (crapitalism), but that type of thing is what exists in the U.S. today. The USSR controlled the means of production - all the factories, farms, etc. - and the whole economy was centrally planned. Unbastardized capitalism is a pure free market, which is what I'm advocating. On the continuum of communism to capitalism, the ones closer to capitalism have ALWAYS produced a wealthier economy, and that benefits everybody, even the poor. You grow the whole pie instead of just divvying up the smaller pie that you have now.
I disagree here as well. The government, at least in the U.S., was designed to protect people from internal or external criminals and resolve disputes, and that's about it. It wasn't seen as the government's job to get involved in society and provide anything else. I even have an issue with the minimal government set up, because they still decided they're allowed to take everyone's money by force to fund the courts, military, police, and pay the politicians...but I've gone over that before.
Society is allowed to change.
And 'everyone's money' doesn't just fund courts, military, police and politicians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
The selfishness part is important. If you earn something honestly, not fraudulently or by force, it belongs to you. You're the rightful owner. If someone else tried to take it from you by force or fraud, it isn't selfish to defend against that.
The problem with this is that no one is an island. I don't think it's possible for someone to earn millions of dollars without involving other people. Obviously giant corporations can involve the exploitation of even millions of people...but do you think it's 'honest' when a plumber can buy tools made by slave labor in China and then use those cheaply-made tools to make thousands of dollars in profits for himself?
I don't think anyone can even participate in this society without screwing people over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
What's the real difference? Are you voluntarily subordinating your own will to that of the group? I have no problem with that. I have a problem with being forced to do so.
East Asian societies are largely collectivist... it's not a matter of voluntary or involuntary subordination-- it's more about culture, especially philosophy and psychology. Japan is a perfect example of individuals subordinating their will to a 'greater good'... do you think that Japan is a nightmare police state?
But again, socialism doesn't need to be collectivist. You can have duties to the state that exist alongside your pursuit of your personal goals. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
The way I view it is that everyone is born with different abilities and into different situations, and the law shouldn't prevent anyone from achieving whatever they can from there. That isn't the same as the law proactively "making" everyone more equal.
The analogy I like is to imagine a race. Everyone in the race has different levels of speed, endurance, training, etc...the only thing needed to make it fair is to not move certain people ahead or behind the starting line (everyone has the law apply equally to them, not favoring or punishing any person or group). Once the gun fires, it's all on the runners to win or lose the race. It might not be fair that some people have more ability, but that doesn't mean they're obligated to let the slower people win. Every person in the race is free to run as hard or as slow as they want as well, so effort is a factor too.
How does private property mean 'not moving certain people ahead or behind the starting line'? It seems to me that the wealthy already have an ENORMOUS head start. They have the best schools, the best doctors, the best neighborhoods, the biggest houses, the most capital etc. The only way they can lose is by choosing to hop on one foot, run backwards or go the wrong way.
All I've ever been talking about is equal opportunity... and either you need to rethink your analogies or realize that the ideology you're supporting doesn't reflect your personal beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
To answer your last paragraph, I think it helps to look at history. If this were hundreds of years ago, or even decades ago, life was very hard. You had to work most of your life just to survive. The creation of wealth in society has allowed us to even have the luxury of free time, or the luxury to only work 40 hours a week and still be doing pretty well. If the wealth of society continues to grow, which it will, but more slowly if hindered by the state, it will allow for even more freedom to do as you please. You can see how that has happened in places that are becoming more industrialized that were previously rural.
I get that AnCaps need this sort of narrative to be true in order to believe what you do, but it's a lot more complicated than 'the creation of wealth (ie: the market) made the world great'.
I would just like to know why liberals trust "government" as a concept more than "big business" as a concept. I am giving liberals far more ground here because I could have said that liberals trust the government more than business, but instead, I said "Big Business" which should allow liberals to present a far more convincing argument to trust "government" over "big business."
I'm willing to go tit-for-tat with liberals and name off atrocity after atrocity that government has performed, in turn liberals name atrocities that corporations have committed. I just don't know what about government has convinced the left that it has the propensity toward "good" while big business is bad. I mean think of the Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Maoism, North Korea, Stalinism, etc...the list goes on of atrocities committed by governments.
Honestly I'm not sure why conservatives think private business is any better. I've worked for them my whole adult life and I've never seen any sort of wisdom or efficiency in them that makes me think I should put my life in their hands. At the very least government doesn't have the profit motive, which can be a curse but also a major, major blessing. Not everything we need in this world has a profit margin and trusting a business with something like that would be disastrous.
I personally take things on a case-by-case basis and don't believe in a major ideology trusting the nation to the hands of government or business entirely.
Also, I think you're falling into the trap of thinking extremist Communist regimes represent all government. Just because people want increased regulation or government programs doesn't mean they want the Stalin's USSR. There are many examples of non-despotic regimes with major government regulations and programs, too. Don't let outliers blind you.
First, I see we're making a lot of different points all at once, so if you want to just focus on the points you think are most important or fundamental, feel free. I know it can get overwhelming seeing a giant post where you have to respond to every point made. So anyway...
I don't disagree with anything you said. However, that still doesn't mean the best candidate is obligated to do anything. There's a difference between being an uncaring jerk and being a criminal. It isn't a criminal offense to let someone drown, even though you should probably be shunned and criticized to no end for doing that. It's a criminal offense to push someone in and then not help them, because the responsibility is on you for putting them in that situation, not them.
My analogy was only making one point-- that those who own the most superfluous wealth are best equipped to help the poor.
I know it isn't a criminal offense to let someone drown-- that's the problem. It's also why an AnCap society would be even LESS moral than the one we have now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
The thing is, you're in the global 1% if you live in the U.S...so if the principle is that people who own more must give to those who need the money more (correct me if that isn't the principle), then we should be sacrificing most of what we earn to give to people around the world. I'm not accusing you of this, but a lot of people are very quick to defend this idea if they're the ones receiving the money, but not as much when they're the ones being taken from.
I definitely wouldn't be receiving any money, but I can't imagine that I would be expected to sacrifice 'most of what I earn'.
But even if I had to sacrifice my entire paycheck, an egalitarian state would also have to provide me with a lot more-- things like health care, education, housing, child care, electricity, entertainment and food on top of the public services I'm already using... so it's not like I wouldn't be getting anything in return. And to be honest, with all of this talk of needing millions to retire comfortably, I would MUCH rather rest assured in the knowledge that I would be taken care of in my old age than feeling like there's no way I'll ever be able to retire comfortably.
On the other hand, I REALLY don't live extravagantly at the moment, so it's hard to imagine my standard of living changing very much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think I get it now. I'd say they work for wealth, which can come in many forms. Money is just a way to represent wealth...so instead of working directly for food, shelter, healthcare, entertainment, schooling, etc., they're given money which is more convenient. People have varying motivations and goals, so some will value money for the options it gives them, or for the material things they've always thought would be cool to have, or the status they get from it...others don't really care and can be happy not achieving much financial success. They might be more motivated to do other things, and that's fine. The personal satisfaction aspect varies as well. It depends on the person's attitude. Some take pride in their job, and others do the bare minimum so they can get the money and go do something else.
People only work for money in a capitalist state because that is how they have been trained to behave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
This is where you're definitely losing me. The USSR was state capitalism? I'm definitely against crony capitalism (crapitalism), but that type of thing is what exists in the U.S. today. The USSR controlled the means of production - all the factories, farms, etc. - and the whole economy was centrally planned. Unbastardized capitalism is a pure free market, which is what I'm advocating. On the continuum of communism to capitalism, the ones closer to capitalism have ALWAYS produced a wealthier economy, and that benefits everybody, even the poor. You grow the whole pie instead of just divvying up the smaller pie that you have now.
I disagree here as well. The government, at least in the U.S., was designed to protect people from internal or external criminals and resolve disputes, and that's about it. It wasn't seen as the government's job to get involved in society and provide anything else. I even have an issue with the minimal government set up, because they still decided they're allowed to take everyone's money by force to fund the courts, military, police, and pay the politicians...but I've gone over that before.
Society is allowed to change.
And 'everyone's money' doesn't just fund courts, military, police and politicians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
The selfishness part is important. If you earn something honestly, not fraudulently or by force, it belongs to you. You're the rightful owner. If someone else tried to take it from you by force or fraud, it isn't selfish to defend against that.
The problem with this is that no one is an island. I don't think it's possible for someone to earn millions of dollars without involving other people. Obviously giant corporations can involve the exploitation of even millions of people...but do you think it's 'honest' when a plumber can buy tools made by slave labor in China and then use those cheaply-made tools to make thousands of dollars in profits for himself?
The only rral difference between my society and yours is that in yours you're free to screw over/manipulate all of the people who help you to earn what you have. I don't think anyone can even participate in this society without screwing people over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
What's the real difference? Are you voluntarily subordinating your own will to that of the group? I have no problem with that. I have a problem with being forced to do so.
East Asian societies are largely collectivist... it's not a matter of voluntary or involuntary subordination-- it's more about culture, especially philosophy and psychology. Japan is a perfect example of individuals subordinating their will to a 'greater good'... do you think that Japan is a nightmare police state?
But again, socialism doesn't need to be collectivist. You can have duties to the state that exist alongside your pursuit of your personal goals. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, the state is in a better position to help you REALIZE your dreams. Instead of risking your livelihood and potentially going bankrupt, you can present your idea and the government will decide if they want to do it... you risk nothing and the only thing that could happen is they tell you it's a bad idea and refuse to help you out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
The way I view it is that everyone is born with different abilities and into different situations, and the law shouldn't prevent anyone from achieving whatever they can from there. That isn't the same as the law proactively "making" everyone more equal.
The analogy I like is to imagine a race. Everyone in the race has different levels of speed, endurance, training, etc...the only thing needed to make it fair is to not move certain people ahead or behind the starting line (everyone has the law apply equally to them, not favoring or punishing any person or group). Once the gun fires, it's all on the runners to win or lose the race. It might not be fair that some people have more ability, but that doesn't mean they're obligated to let the slower people win. Every person in the race is free to run as hard or as slow as they want as well, so effort is a factor too.
How does private property mean 'not moving certain people ahead or behind the starting line'? It seems to me that the wealthy already have an ENORMOUS head start. They have the best schools, the best doctors, the best neighborhoods, the biggest houses, the most capital etc. The only way they can lose is by choosing to hop on one foot, run backwards or go the wrong way.
All I've ever been talking about is equal opportunity... and either you need to rethink your analogies or realize that the ideology you're supporting doesn't reflect your personal beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
To answer your last paragraph, I think it helps to look at history. If this were hundreds of years ago, or even decades ago, life was very hard. You had to work most of your life just to survive. The creation of wealth in society has allowed us to even have the luxury of free time, or the luxury to only work 40 hours a week and still be doing pretty well. If the wealth of society continues to grow, which it will, but more slowly if hindered by the state, it will allow for even more freedom to do as you please. You can see how that has happened in places that are becoming more industrialized that were previously rural.
I get that AnCaps need this sort of narrative to be true in order to believe what you do, but it's a lot more complicated than 'the creation of wealth (ie: the market) made the world great'.
I would just like to know why liberals trust "government" as a concept more than "big business" as a concept. I am giving liberals far more ground here because I could have said that liberals trust the government more than business, but instead, I said "Big Business" which should allow liberals to present a far more convincing argument to trust "government" over "big business."
I'm willing to go tit-for-tat with liberals and name off atrocity after atrocity that government has performed, in turn liberals name atrocities that corporations have committed. I just don't know what about government has convinced the left that it has the propensity toward "good" while big business is bad. I mean think of the Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Maoism, North Korea, Stalinism, etc...the list goes on of atrocities committed by governments.
The private sector involves free will and free choice, chosen by the majority. Liberals are a distinct minority, making up 20% or less of the population in this country. The thought that the majority will be choosing a product or service to become popular and successful, scares liberals to death. Why? Because they are the minority opinion in the country. They need to force government to ram liberal choices down the nation's throat.
whether it's ObamaCare, immigration, or global warming, the liberal views are in the minority, so they use government to push their agenda to the top.
My analogy was only making one point-- that those who own the most superfluous wealth are best equipped to help the poor.
I know it isn't a criminal offense to let someone drown-- that's the problem. It's also why an AnCap society would be even LESS moral than the one we have now.
I have a problem with the principle that a person should be punished as a criminal for not doing something. If I walk by a homeless person, am I a criminal for not helping them when I could? I may choose to, but am I responsible for them being in that situation, and therefore have an obligation to them? You can replace homeless person with anything. If you see those commercials about starving children in Africa, are you a criminal for not donating to help them?
It's generous and kind to do it, and most people will help others voluntarily if they can, but someone doesn't have a right to what you own just because they happen to want or need it.
Quote:
I definitely wouldn't be receiving any money, but I can't imagine that I would be expected to sacrifice 'most of what I earn'.
But even if I had to sacrifice my entire paycheck, an egalitarian state would also have to provide me with a lot more-- things like health care, education, housing, child care, electricity, entertainment and food on top of the public services I'm already using... so it's not like I wouldn't be getting anything in return. And to be honest, with all of this talk of needing millions to retire comfortably, I would MUCH rather rest assured in the knowledge that I would be taken care of in my old age than feeling like there's no way I'll ever be able to retire comfortably.
On the other hand, I REALLY don't live extravagantly at the moment, so it's hard to imagine my standard of living changing very much.
I'd have no issue with a voluntary system like that, but I think it's wrong to force anyone into that type of system.
Even on the practical side of things, the least productive will just be living off of those who are working to produce wealth - I don't see how that can be sustainable. Which leads back to the debate over incentives...
Quote:
People only work for money in a capitalist state because that is how they have been trained to behave.
I think people have needs, and they need to put in labor to fulfill those needs. A person by themselves can't do nothing and expect to have their needs met. Therefore, if we want all the things that exist, and things that will be created in the future, someone will be putting their time and labor into that. I think we agree on all of that, right?
Where we disagree is...I think the people producing things will want some kind of compensation for their efforts. I don't think they'll decide to do all the hard work just for the satisfaction of it, or for the good of society...especially when everyone's basic needs are being met. Why not just live off of what you're provided if the effort to do more doesn't translate into anything more?
It's kind of the whole group project thing in school. The A student will be motivated to create a good project, but if the others are guaranteed a C and don't want to work as hard on it, the burden increases for the A student. People should be expected to produce something if they want the reward...eventually there won't be enough to provide for everyone, especially when the producers get fed up with carrying the burden and quit.
Quote:
The problem with this is that no one is an island. I don't think it's possible for someone to earn millions of dollars without involving other people. Obviously giant corporations can involve the exploitation of even millions of people...but do you think it's 'honest' when a plumber can buy tools made by slave labor in China and then use those cheaply-made tools to make thousands of dollars in profits for himself?
The only rral difference between my society and yours is that in yours you're free to screw over/manipulate all of the people who help you to earn what you have. I don't think anyone can even participate in this society without screwing people over.
It isn't screwing people over. If you have a business, you can decide to hire help or do everything on your own. If you need help, you decide what job needs to be done and how much you're willing to pay someone to do it. You then offer the job to someone, and they can take it if they want. If not, they don't have to help you. Maybe they take it because nobody else is offering them a job, but it isn't someone else's responsibility to give them anything. The business owner decided to produce something for others in return for money or some other thing they value. If they hadn't started the business, or say nobody started a business, what would it even mean to say they should be paid a living wage? They'd just be sitting there expecting someone else to create the wealth and nobody would have anything.
Quote:
East Asian societies are largely collectivist... it's not a matter of voluntary or involuntary subordination-- it's more about culture, especially philosophy and psychology. Japan is a perfect example of individuals subordinating their will to a 'greater good'... do you think that Japan is a nightmare police state?
If it's voluntary, great. If there's a way to actually change the culture so that every person voluntarily subordinates themselves to the "greater good", that would be amazing. I don't see how that can happen. Even in Japan, people are being forced to subordinate themselves. If it was voluntary, they wouldn't need any government to force it on them.
Quote:
But again, socialism doesn't need to be collectivist. You can have duties to the state that exist alongside your pursuit of your personal goals. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, the state is in a better position to help you REALIZE your dreams. Instead of risking your livelihood and potentially going bankrupt, you can present your idea and the government will decide if they want to do it... you risk nothing and the only thing that could happen is they tell you it's a bad idea and refuse to help you out.
Do you have an example so I can understand that more clearly? The way you described it made it sound like you have an idea of what you'd like to do, and you ask permission from the state, and if they approve of it you're allowed to proceed.
Quote:
How does private property mean 'not moving certain people ahead or behind the starting line'? It seems to me that the wealthy already have an ENORMOUS head start. They have the best schools, the best doctors, the best neighborhoods, the biggest houses, the most capital etc. The only way they can lose is by choosing to hop on one foot, run backwards or go the wrong way.
All I've ever been talking about is equal opportunity... and either you need to rethink your analogies or realize that the ideology you're supporting doesn't reflect your personal beliefs.
That's why I said equal under the law. Nobody should be "deciding" who starts where. You play the hand you're dealt. I was born decently smart, and into a low-income but caring family. Others had more growing up, some had less, some had bad families, some have a higher IQ, some lower, some more attractive, others not....everyone has a unique situation and it's nobody's responsibility but your own to make it what you want. I think that's also the attitude that leads to success...sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quote:
I get that AnCaps need this sort of narrative to be true in order to believe what you do, but it's a lot more complicated than 'the creation of wealth (ie: the market) made the world great'.
I didn't say it solely made the world great, just that it freed up a lot more time and capital for people. If we were working on a farm, especially before the industrial revolution, we wouldn't even have time to discuss how to make the world better. Only the wealthiest people could do that. I can have this discussion on my iPhone because there's far more wealth in our society than there used to be.
Whew - my fingers are sore. Wealthy modern society problems...
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.
