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.
Communism and socialism are economic systems, not political ones. To communism’s founder Karl Marx, history is about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, while economics is about the middle class (bourgeoise) and nobility exploiting the working class, namely by paying the worker less for his or her labor than the actual value of goods and services the worker produced, in effect stealing part of the workers’ labors and paying them just enough to survive. Marx’s solution was to abolish all private ownership of property and have the workers own the means of production (farms, mines, forests, factories, transport lines, and any item that can produce wealth for the owner). In short, communism centers on who owns the means of production.
Laws regulating property privately is not of who owns the land. It’s a matter of regulating human behavior, more of a public policy matter than an economic one. Therefore, communism does not cover such matters. Nor does it cover taxes, what we pay in order to maintain a police force, legal system, and military in order to protect society from threats to it (invading armies and criminals). It also includes funding public goods that the private sector could never hope to accomplish well on its own, if at all (roads, bridges, dams, rural electrification, etc.).
Again, this is not a question of who owns what, at least outside the geographic range of the project (the government could always declare imminent domain over a property IF the owner is justly compensated). It is a question of our individual obligations to society (promote mutual security, mutual obligations to help fund projects which neither individuals, nor the private sector could ever develop on their own, but yet are considered vital for even minimal functioning of all members of a society).
In short, once the question shifts from outright ownership of wealth-creating properties and to our obligations to fund police, military, and mutually helping each other fund needed projects beyond the ability of the private sector to do so, it’s not about communism any more.
Definitons are irrelevant academic discussion outside the classroom. both result in loss of personal freedom, supression of ideas, persecution and prosecution of political opposition and the creation of government elite class. Two economic systems when installed by a government are as welcome as handing a loaded semiautomatic pistol to a three year old.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,598,050 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Definitons are irrelevant academic discussion outside the classroom. both result in loss of personal freedom, supression of ideas, persecution and prosecution of political opposition and the creation of government elite class. Two economic systems when installed by a government are as welcome as handing a loaded semiautomatic pistol to a three year old.
*Definitions are quite helpful, in fact. It helps to know what your opponents think when challenging them. Definitions also help a lot when you want to avoid misidentifying who are your adversaries.
*What kinds of freedoms, based on the OP, are you losing? And what and how is that thing, person, etc. taking them away or persecuting you? At any rate, not all "freedoms" (whether "to" or "from") have equal ethical priority. What are the rights of one person versus another?
*Unless we get technology to genetically or neurologically reengineer human nature itself (don't hold your breath!) we'll always have classes, even if only based on informal social pecking order status. That still counts for a lot when persuading people to favor you over your rival[1]
*Rebels eventually become the government (actual ruling class, party in power, or even voters and activists, etc). That includes pro-capitalist rebels who overthrow a socialist or communist regime.
Mind you, I'm basically a capitalist but not a PURE one because it requires rules, laws, and regulations to protect the consumers from dishonest business dealings (or grossly unequal ones), labor exploitation, keeping dangerous goods off the market, pollution, etc.
[1] In really small towns and rural counties, it's not hard to see plenty of people of (on paper) lower economic/education/occupation status have a higher informal pecking order status (who people prefer social contacts with) than even people of higher "on paper status" types (sometimes even with the highest such on-paper status in the community). In this case, informal status is based on adhering to convention and tradition, charisma, high social dominance skills, having "common sense"
Communist revolution succeeded in poor countries for the most part, where the vast majority of the people had no freedom, no sufficient food, no dignity to begin with.
The revolution failed in all countries with deep religious root or developed capitalist economy already.
*Definitions are quite helpful, in fact. It helps to know what your opponents think when challenging them. Definitions also help a lot when you want to avoid misidentifying who are your adversaries.
*What kinds of freedoms, based on the OP, are you losing? And what and how is that thing, person, etc. taking them away or persecuting you? At any rate, not all "freedoms" (whether "to" or "from") have equal ethical priority. What are the rights of one person versus another?
*Unless we get technology to genetically or neurologically reengineer human nature itself (don't hold your breath!) we'll always have classes, even if only based on informal social pecking order status. That still counts for a lot when persuading people to favor you over your rival[1]
*Rebels eventually become the government (actual ruling class, party in power, or even voters and activists, etc). That includes pro-capitalist rebels who overthrow a socialist or communist regime.
Mind you, I'm basically a capitalist but not a PURE one because it requires rules, laws, and regulations to protect the consumers from dishonest business dealings (or grossly unequal ones), labor exploitation, keeping dangerous goods off the market, pollution, etc.
[1] In really small towns and rural counties, it's not hard to see plenty of people of (on paper) lower economic/education/occupation status have a higher informal pecking order status (who people prefer social contacts with) than even people of higher "on paper status" types (sometimes even with the highest such on-paper status in the community). In this case, informal status is based on adhering to convention and tradition, charisma, high social dominance skills, having "common sense"
When you impose income tax or property tax, I am losing my right to my legally earned property.
Regulation is the root cause of all corruption. Without regulations, business people would have no incentive to bribe politicians.
Lying, cheating, polluting create actual harm to others, and they are illegal already.
Capitalism by its definition guides people to be honest and ethical. Of course, people will lie and cheat, but no business, even the illegal business, can thrive by cheating their customers.
I am all for punishing lying, cheating and polluting, but I am against regulations that "prevents." Do we need regulations to prevent murder?
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,598,050 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
When you impose income tax or property tax, I am losing my right to my legally earned property.
Regulation is the root cause of all corruption. Without regulations, business people would have no incentive to bribe politicians.
Lying, cheating, polluting create actual harm to others, and they are illegal already.
Capitalism by its definition guides people to be honest and ethical. Of course, people will lie and cheat, but no business, even the illegal business, can thrive by cheating their customers.
I am all for punishing lying, cheating and polluting, but I am against regulations that "prevents." Do we need regulations to prevent murder?
The right to private property is not absolute. Your use of your own property ends where other people’s rights begin – namely all the following at low individual cost: security (police and military), decent infrastructure, flood control, receive social insurance when you need it (including health care), education.
Under your system, only the wealthy will be able to afford that without financial stress while the poor won’t be able to afford much (if any) of these things at all. In effect, freedom is unequally distributed as well because the poor won’t be free to get even the basics of many (if not most) of these services vitally important for them to be safe, secure, and productive. In effect, your system means “All are free but some have more freedom than others”, for the rich will be able to get their way much more of the time than even under the US’s current system.
Also, the well-heeded have always had the resources to bribe the well-connected. In a stateless society, those with more resources (i.e. wealth) will still be able to bribe others to gain advantages. At least in a well-functioning modern state the would-be briber has to worry about getting caught by the authorities.
Freedom may be important, but there are limits to how much freedom a people can have before life becomes unsafe, capricious, and outright insane.
The right to private property is not absolute. Your use of your own property ends where other people’s rights begin – namely all the following at low individual cost: security (police and military), decent infrastructure, flood control, receive social insurance when you need it (including health care), education.
Under your system, only the wealthy will be able to afford that without financial stress while the poor won’t be able to afford much (if any) of these things at all. In effect, freedom is unequally distributed as well because the poor won’t be free to get even the basics of many (if not most) of these services vitally important for them to be safe, secure, and productive. In effect, your system means “All are free but some have more freedom than others”, for the rich will be able to get their way much more of the time than even under the US’s current system.
Also, the well-heeded have always had the resources to bribe the well-connected. In a stateless society, those with more resources (i.e. wealth) will still be able to bribe others to gain advantages. At least in a well-functioning modern state the would-be briber has to worry about getting caught by the authorities.
Freedom may be important, but there are limits to how much freedom a people can have before life becomes unsafe, capricious, and outright insane.
The right to private property IS absolute. For you to say it's not, you advocate violence against people who earned their property legally as that's the only way to get other people's property.
Just think about how despicable this is - you advocate taking other people's property at gunpoint. In a moral person's mind, it's armed robbery, plain and simple. What's moral about armed robbery?
If the government is not regulating the business and is only focusing on national security and enforcing the law, what advantage anybody may have to bribe the government and for what?
The reason that poor people remain poor because 1) they make poor decisions for themselves, and 2) government regulations.
Asians and Jewish are two groups of people focusing on education and they are the two most wealthy groups in America.
Government regulations make it impossible for the poor people to get ahead. Like minimum wage, who is going to hire the inexperienced or uneducated poor people who can't produce more value than the minimum wage? How can the poor people wade through the monstrosity of the laws and pay all the fees just to be in compliance so that they can start a business? Do you have any idea how many federal, state, local, HOA laws a person must follow to start a business?
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.
