Capitalism, Socialism, & Jesus (split)

Post Reply New Topic

I never claimed to be religous just that i thought Jesus was a good man. Big business steals, some of it legal, some not. I dont agree that the rich earn their money, they are just smart at making money, usually well connected and usually with little scruples about ripping poorer people off. What Mugabe is doing is on the whole despicable but he was right to take the land off of the white farmers who got the land by force in the first place.

Eamonn, I think a lot of what your mentioning could be handled via tax law more easily than socialism. My own thought is that the IRS should figure out what's a reasonable ammount of money for billionaires to hold on to (possibly a certain percentage of their net worth) and any ammount over that which they leave sitting idol should be taxed at a very discouraging rate. If they really wanted to get it right, they could set the rules up to where reinvesting in quality job creation (ie. things well above minimum wage) would be enough of a tax shelter to where they'd actually be saving money by it. That may mean taxing em harder in other ways to compensate but still, you can see where laws can be changed, especially in tax code, much faster and much more effectively than you can redesign and retool a bureaucracy. What we need to do though is put the dangling carrot of self-interest in the right places.

Something needs to be done anyway. We cant call ourselves civilised with any conviction while poor people are dying and the rest are living in abject poverty while there is so much fat-cats around. There is enough resources in the world for everyone to live comfortably and any excuses the world leaders make to the contrary are just that, excuses. While i think the socialism practised in Cuba is a little too extreme, (professionals and talented people should get more money but everyone deserves to live in dignity) a watered down version of it would be good.

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism -- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." – Ayn Rand

Having lived under only communism she would know i suppose. She was also radically pro-capatilist and made a pretty penny out of it. Turkeys dont vote for Christmas.

I think the hardest thing would be striking a balance between providence for the poor vs. professional motivation. If they ever think about socializing healthcare they're going to want to think very long and very hard about just how they'll keep doctors competing for better quality service.

Communism is an idea that was stolen and manipulated by Maoists and Stalinists. Marx imagined a "true" Communist revolution happening from the bottom up, NOT from the top down. China and the former USSR were extremely top-down organizations.

Not only is Communism not like Socialism, but Communism is not Communism if you think "USSRism" was Communism.

Ayn Rand was an extreme capitalist. Yes socialism is obtained by the vote, she is right about that. But isn't voting the key to democracy. If the people want socialism, give them socialism.

You really have been licking GW's backside for quite a while now, if you can dare to say democracy is suicide.

I very much doubt it.
Easing the burden on the taxpayer and allowing those marvellous greedy people to feel good by making voluntary donation seems to be failing. Any explanation?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story ... D=10344623 ,

Thats about it in my view. Combine the best of the EZLN with Marx's "From each according to ability, to each according to need " and you start to get somewhere.
Regarding the poll, don't we have radical libertarian anymore? Is Anarchy dead? Is freethinking obsolete?

Democracy sucks. I am a supporter of a constitutionally limited Republic. I favor Liberty over a dictatorship of the people.

And if you think I'm a Bush supporter you apparently don't know me very well.

Well, regardless of Bush support or non-support, a government really needs decision from those who are informed enough to have a credible opinion for the weigh-in. If you had everyone voting on things you'd far too often run into poorly thought out reasoning, people voting for something because their freinds say its cool, etc.

Then again I don't even think most democrats would want a pure democracy. Especially in the U.S., too many fundamentalist neo-cons in those central states that outnumber all the level-headed peepz on the coastlines

Agreed. That is why it is necessary to have a constitution which limits what the government can do. Government should not have unlimited power, and this is true whether it is controlled by a single person or a majority of people. There needs to be limits. If a majority of people thought it was okay to impose slavery on a minority, for example, that shouldn't be allowed. A majority is not always right... heck a majority voted for Bush so what does that tell you?

I think most people agree government needs to be limited, even socialists. Where we disagree is where to draw the line. Most socialists think government shouldn't have the right to tell you what your religion can or can't be, for example. But Socialists do think it is perfectly acceptable to confiscate your property at gun point for redistribution. I think that is unacceptable.

So democracy in it's pure form is a bad idea, imho. A republic is like a democracy but is limited in what it can and can't do, and that I think, makes it a more ideal form of government.

You mean all those people I was told were nasty disctators and mant governments who did their best to protect people from themselves and uninformed opinion were right? Do you lean towards the Anarchist technocracy, or more traditional totalitarin schemes?

But if we abolish democracy, who will decide the laws and policies instead? Minority rule does not seem a viable alternative. Just look at 19th Century England for example. Only wealthy people could vote then, whilst the ordinary people were stuck in poverty and couldn't vote their way out.

Property is seized regularly off of poor people because they cant afford to keep up their payments. Property is also seized by the state to build motoway's etc. I think the top few percentage have got a cheek to have far more land and money than they could ever need but still want more at the exepnse of the rest. Under democratic socialism the rich will pay more taxes so there will be no need to confiscate their property unless they are doing something wrong like the tax evasion that they are famous for.