Communism

[ybbor]

And you are highly taxed, but the tax money does not go to welfare or other types of socialist program nonsense...The poor people have the basic needs and the basic needs only, food, shelter, medical, and education...The more inefficient or polluting some process is the higher it is taxed...

no welfare, but the poor get food, medical, and shelter how can you insure they get this with any system other than welfare?

how do you propose one gets ahead? no welfare if you start behind, and the efficient machines are expensive, while the inexpensive ones are inefficient and heavily taxed. your situation seems less egalitarian than present-day.

 

[Atropos]

I think that there should be a capped communist capitalist republic. That means there is a maximum amount of money you can spend or waste. And you are highly taxed, but the tax money does not go to welfare or other types of socialist program nonsense. The tax money is invested in scientific research, and city planning and architecture, efficient mass transit, and recycling.

So who is determining how the money gets spent? You? Doesn't sound too democratic to me.

The poor people have the basic needs and the basic needs only, food, shelter, medical, and education. There should be a constitution that guarantees rights to the citizens.

Which rights?

There is low crime because most are educated.

Crime increased along with literacy in the late twentieth century.

You can buy what you want but you can't live excessively (in an unnecessary manner).

As determined by whom?

Really old people shouldn't be kept alive artificially.

I take it you're not really old.

The more inefficient or polluting some process is the higher it is taxed.

Polluting: fine (external effects theory) but hard to quantify. Inefficient: If it's really inefficient (wastes expensive resources) then why is it economically viable? Prices are their own taxation when it comes to waste.

People are taxed on spending rather than income.

Why? Spending isn't necessarily less socially productive than saving (Keynesian multiplier effect).

]Edit: Also no couple may have more than 2 children. If there is no population growth people would live much higher quality lives (The world does not need more than 5-6 billion people, nor can it handle more than that)

Who determines what the world "needs?" Uh, sounds like you again.

Oh, and there is no evidence for a correlation between population growth and quality of life. Over the last two centuries, the population of the West has increased exponentially as living standards have risen.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Edit: Also no couple may have more than 2 children. If there is no population growth people would live much higher quality lives (The world does not need more than 5-6 billion people, nor can it handle more than that)

You have it flipped here. Lower population growth does not equal higher standard of living. In countries with higher standard of living, there has been a decrease in population growth.

 

[CaptainF]

Here, lets totally ensure that the earth is never over populated, or polluted.

I propose that you elect me as president for life, and mine will be a government where my soldiers will have heads will roll in the gutters at random, and you will, under penalty of the law, reside in primitive mudhuts. Technology? Nah, use your brain you burgeouise babies. At any random time you can, and will be selected and "culled" for the greater good of the earth.

Vote for meeee!!!

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Ok what about a system of inheritance where the child cannot inherit more than a set amount of money. All the extra money is distributed into the accounts of all the children of the country. What's the flaw in that?

 

[Godwynn]

Ok what about a system of inheritance where the child cannot inherit more than a set amount of money. All the extra money is distributed into the accounts of all the children of the country. What's the flaw in that?

Isn't the point of investing and earning money is to pass on what is left to your children when you leave this earth?

Say the amount is $100,000. The people who are saving money for their children will not save over that amount, since it will not go to their children, and hence will not invest money into the economy. And an economy without investment in its future will be in shambles.

Besides if I wanna give it to other children, there are plenty of charities for that.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Isn't the point of investing and earning money is to pass on what is left to your children when you leave this earth?

Say the amount is $100,000. The people who are saving money for their children will not save over that amount, since it will not go to their children, and hence will not invest money into the economy. And an economy without investment in its future will be in shambles.

Besides if I wanna give it to other children, there are plenty of charities for that.

It will be invested by the other children. And if there's more left let it be invested in science research

 

[Godwynn]

It will be invested by the other children. And if there's more left let it be invested in science research

What keeps people working knowing that their money will not be their childrens?

 

[amadeus]

I wouldn't get worried about it; I may even be able to profit off of it.

Instead of having the one individual control all those assets, you could transfer it to the Sharpe Senior Holdings Corporation and be assured that for a nominal fee, your wealth would be handed down to future generations.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Well, any suggestions that would prevent capitalism from its fascist doom?

 

[Godwynn]

Well, any suggestions that would prevent capitalism from its fascist doom?

Quit restricting it?

 

[amadeus]

Well, any suggestions that would prevent capitalism from its fascist doom?

Stop associating capitalism with fascism?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Stop associating capitalism with fascism?

Stop asscoiating any left-wing policy with communism?

Sorry, you walked right in to that one.

 

[Kozmos]

Capitalism is only good if your at the top or in the high middle...I intend to claw my way to the top or reform it.

 

[Azash]

All hail McCarthyism?

 

[Atropos]

Well, any suggestions that would prevent capitalism from its fascist doom?

No one has ever won money betting on the fascist doom of capitalism.

If you're using the word "fascist" in its literal sense, by the way, you might be interested to know that that party also advocated punitive inheritance and wealth taxes in its 1919 programme.

 

[JerichoHill]

What Godwinn said.

Seriously. If we protect property rights, and let everyone compete equally, and use our tax revenues to educate those who are not so fortunate, isn't that the best system?

Why limit what people can do? That flies in the face of anything that I've understood the principle that which the greatest revolutions in the world have stood for : Freedom.

Capitalism is not doomed to fascism. It is only doomed to Fascism when we allow the government to absorb capitalism into some form of bastard child.

 

[ArneHD]

Socialism can work, as long as there is enough resources to go around and there is nobody is inherently better than anyone else (make the Jante law an acctual law!).

To be honest, I think that the goverment can are better suited to handle your money than most powerful corperations. The government may not be efficient, but they aren't tryin to get as much money out of you as possible.
Every power needs a counter balance.

Oh, and I ferverently belive in Behaviourism, that all men (and women and transexuals and genderqueer) can be geniouses, if only we raise them in the correct way.