Ask a Red, Second Edition

[civver_764]

Yeah there is, they didn't sacrifice large sections of their time and money to develop their company. They weren't working on this in their basement not getting paid for years putting it together. They didn't make the risk! They came in later receiving a steady paycheck.

Your thinking of this in the context of a capitalist society. If someone has a good idea the community will pay them to develop it. But then later they don't get all the money from the people who produce it, that just doesn't make any sense.

No we're not. I'm not talking about just Bill Gates and Steve Jobs here, but entrepreneurs in general large and small. The guys with hundred thousand dollar companies, as well as hundred billion dollar companies.

All who design innovative new technologies? News to me.

In fact much of our recent technological development has come from government programs like NASA.

In fact, aren't Cheezy and Civver both Christians? I'm sure they have a few thoughts on this subject.

I'm not religious at all. I would even go as far as to call Christianity absurd. However I don't really care what other people believe so long as it isn't forced on everyone.

I don't know if this question has been asked yet, but what kind of life could someone who would be considered a member of the middle-class in capitalism, have under the system you are proposing? (in regards to where he/she would get food, what he/she would do for entertainment, where they might work, etc)

Views of how society would look probably differ between us. Ie. Traitorfish would have those who refuse to work beg and starve, but I would have them be given the bare necessities. I just don't believe in letting people die.

For the middle class they would be given basic food items for free, and then they would use labor credits that they earn from contributing to society to buy more "luxurious" food items. That's just how I see it and I'm sure you could get a different answer for someone else. Entertainment would be pretty much the same, you could still go to the movies, listen to music, go out to eat, etc. And there would be the same kinds of work places, except they are run democratically now.

Life really wouldn't change that much.

 

[lutzj]

Your thinking of this in the context of a capitalist society. If someone has a good idea the community will pay them to develop it. But then later they don't get all the money from the people who produce it, that just doesn't make any sense.

So instead of receiving a 10% cut of the $10 billion widget industry I receive a lump sum of $1 billion for inventing the widget?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not religious at all. I would even go as far as to call Christianity absurd. However I don't really care what other people believe so long as it isn't forced on everyone.

Ah, I must be getting mixed up with somebody else.

Any volunteers?

 

[civver_764]

So instead of receiving a 10% cut of the $10 billion widget industry I receive a lump sum of $1 billion for inventing the widget?

Well I doubt we'd be dealing in the billions but yeah that's the idea of it.

If you took on administrative duties afterwards you would get paid for that as well.

 

[Atlas14]

I'm not religious at all. I would even go as far as to call Christianity absurd. However I don't really care what other people believe so long as it isn't forced on everyone.

Is it ok to force communism on everyone?

 

[civver_764]

No more than it's ok to force anti-theft laws on people.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm not religious at all. I would even go as far as to call Christianity absurd. However I don't really care what other people believe so long as it isn't forced on everyone.

Yeah, most people don't care.

Views of how society would look probably differ between us. Ie. Traitorfish would have those who refuse to work beg and starve, but I would have them be given the bare necessities. I just don't believe in letting people die.

Why should they be allowed to basically steal from those who work? Note: Not talking about those old enough to retire or those who can't work, but a fit young man who refuses to do anything. Why should he get free stuff?

For the middle class they would be given basic food items for free, and then they would use labor credits that they earn from contributing to society to buy more "luxurious" food items. That's just how I see it and I'm sure you could get a different answer for someone else. Entertainment would be pretty much the same, you could still go to the movies, listen to music, go out to eat, etc. And there would be the same kinds of work places, except they are run democratically now.

Life really wouldn't change that much.

Just for curiosity on the Democratic thing, shouldn't those who put more work into the business have more of a say in it?

For instance, let's for simplicities sake say four people are running a small desert shop in a communist society. Let's say Person A works hard enough, working eight hours a day, five days a week, with two weeks off per year (The standard amount of time.)

Person B is similar, except he works harder, working 10 hours a day, five days a week, and only seven vacation days.

Person C is just a part time worker, working six hours a day three days a week.

Person D is the manager, who works 12 hours a day, 6 days a week (He runs the shop by himself on Saturday) and only uses one vacation week per year.

Now, say they are discussing a management decision that could affect profits.

Shouldn't Person D have the most say since, if it fails, he worked the hardest yet still loses out?

 

[Traitorfish]

Is it ok to force communism on everyone?

Communism is, by definition, voluntary.

Why should they be allowed to basically steal from those who work? Note: Not talking about those old enough to retire or those who can't work, but a fit young man who refuses to do anything. Why should he get free stuff?

For once, Domination and myself find ourselves on the same page!

Just for curiosity on the Democratic thing, shouldn't those who put more work into the business have more of a say in it?

That depends; should those who put more work into the country have more say into it?

 

[GhostWriter16]

For once, Domination and myself find ourselves on the same page!

Interestingly that most moderate leftists would never accept such a solution, but a far-right libertarian and a far-left libertarian find ourselves agreeing on it

That depends; should those who put more work into the country have more say into it?

You mean in your system or in the current system? I don't know enough about a Direct Democracy to say, but in our current system, obviously not. Bill Gates should not get millions of votes.

But the thing is, its different in that situation, because its not the country, its a business ran, not owned but ran, by him.

Also, what if people refuse to hire new hands because they don't want them to have Democratic representation? What is done about that?

 

[amadeus]

Communism is, by definition, voluntary.

What becomes of those that choose not to volunteer? I don't have any issue with a particular group of like-minded people establishing a commune in their property.

 

[Traitorfish]

You mean in your system or in the current system? I don't know enough about a Direct Democracy to say, but in our current system, obviously not. Bill Gates should not get millions of votes.

But the thing is, its different in that situation, because its not the country, its a business ran, not owned but ran, by him.

And in a cooperative, the business is owned and operated collectively, much as a country is. The privately run business is, to a socialist, as much a despotism as a dictatorial state.

As I've said, this isn't a novel proposal, and it has been shown to work.

Also, what if people refuse to hire new hands because they don't want them to have Democratic representation? What is done about that?

Then the cooperative crashes and burns, because it is apparently staffed by idiots.

What becomes of those that choose not to volunteer?

Then they would either have to labour individually- which is entirely permitted, provided that no exploitation takes place- or leave. Nobody is going to force them to join a cooperative or collective, any more than anyone in Capitalism is going to force people to seek employment. They'd just have to live with the consequences.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What becomes of those that choose not to volunteer? I don't have any issue with a particular group of like-minded people establishing a commune in their property.

This.

And I'm sure its entirely legal right now.

 

[civver_764]

Why should they be allowed to basically steal from those who work? Note: Not talking about those old enough to retire or those who can't work, but a fit young man who refuses to do anything. Why should he get free stuff?

Because it's the humane thing to do.

Just for curiosity on the Democratic thing, shouldn't those who put more work into the business have more of a say in it?

Should the president get more votes than everyone else?

WTH is up with you and Ron Paul? Non-interventionism is like what he's known for, and you're ridiculously interventionist.

 

[lutzj]

Should the president get more votes than everyone else?

The President effectively does have more votes; he can veto a bill approved by dozens of Senators and hundreds of Representatives.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Because it's the humane thing to do.

So we should steal from some to give to others because "Its the humane thing to do?"

I honestly don't get this, if they are able to work and choose to instead spend their day reclining on a couch and watching their TV, why should we help them?

Should the president get more votes than everyone else?

Absolutely not.

WTH is up with you and Ron Paul? Non-interventionism is like what he's known for, and you're ridiculously interventionist.

Because I agree with him on basically everything else, and as much as I'd love to, there's a limit to how much we can do.

 

[useless]

But just not on the main-point that he stands for?

 

[civver_764]

So we should steal from some to give to others because "Its the humane thing to do?"

I honestly don't get this, if they are able to work and choose to instead spend their day reclining on a couch and watching their TV, why should we help them?

They aren't going to have a TV if they don't work.

Absolutely not.

Same principle applies.

Because I agree with him on basically everything else, and as much as I'd love to, there's a limit to how much we can do.

He's also a known terrorist-sympathizer.

The President effectively does have more votes; he can veto a bill approved by dozens of Senators and hundreds of Representatives.

I guess you're right. A better example would be heads of the most productive corporations.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because it's the humane thing to do.

Well, that's debatable. Self-inflicted poverty is self-inflicted, and there's no reason for the rest of us to indulge somebody in their parasitism.

The trick, I would suggest, is to make sure that you have a water-tight system in place to establish the legitimacy of circumstances, such as mental health, that may make it difficult for a person to work. Someone not being willing to work because, for example, they have severe depression is certainly not the same thing as parasitism.

 

[lutzj]

Well, that's debatable. Self-inflicted poverty is poverty, and there's no reason for the rest of us to indulge somebody in their parasitism.

The trick, I would suggest, is to make sure that you have a water-tight system in place to establish the legitimacy of mental conditions- innate or temporary- that may make it difficult for a person to work. Someone not being willing to work because, for example, they have severe depression is certainly not the same thing as parasitism.

You could even use this to find places for those people to work; persons with mild autism make great programmers because they get distracted less.

 

[Traitorfish]

You could even use this to find places for those people to work; persons with mild autism make great programmers because they get distracted less.

As may be the case. I propose no absolutes.