Gather 'Round Ye Socialists and Justify Your Means!

Originally posted by WillJ
Just why is it important to care for others? It's of course true that altruism is (partly) what makes many societies run, and without it we'd all possibly be dead right now, but caring for others out of concern for yourself isn't altruism. Maybe altruism helps you into heaven (or something similar), or God wants us to be altruistic or else he'll punish us, and etc., but again, altruism (as I understand it) is a true concern for the well being of others beyond what is indirectly best for you. Which is quite illogical when you think about it, and isn't really justifiable. Yet we all take it for granted, I suppose because of us being naturally selected to care for others (since it's necessary for populations to function). Or maybe it's our inner spirit telling us what's right, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I see no reason to justify what I do with my own money. Why do I have to explain why I give my money to people? Its my money, its for their benefit, what more do you need to know?

Socialism (redistribution of wealth) is different. For the record I am against it, except some welfare and some controls on companies.

I see welfare as an investment which benefits the society in the long run. Is it really that bad to keep a poor person from comitting crime so they can get a society-beneffiting job?
 
Originally posted by FredLC
Percentages alone are worthless. Analysis of taxes requires both the tax percentage and the base for calculation, otherwise you cannot really evaluate if the tax is harsh.

For a crude example, taxiing a company in 20% can be hard, if we chose as base the income… or light, if we chose as base the profit.

Regards :).
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I meant income taxes
 
By taxing companies you're only further taxing the consumer, and with the bureaucratic and legal stuff that goes along with it, that's more costs passed on to the consumer.
 
Originally posted by luiz


Well archer, 25-45% of tax are really moderate for a socialist. In some social-democracys taxes go up to 60%, and in a true socialist country it would have to go up to 70-80%.
Click to expand...

Thats the type of tax range American social democrats support.
 
What tax range is that, archer? Giving "everything to everyone" (as is the Democrats' policy) certainly isn't free.
 
Originally posted by Pirate


The point of socialism is that there are some things that aren't yours to "own" in the first place.
Click to expand...

Like what? Air? Water?
 
Originally posted by archer_007
25 to 45 percent is most :rolleyes: I must have really sucked at math.
Click to expand...

That would rarely be enough to be classified as a socialist economy in my opinion. I would call that a mixed economy with a capitalist tilt (looking only at the taxes in that scenario). In fact very few economies are really more socialist than capitalist (and for clear reasons too).
Most are a mixed economy that are more on the capitalist side of the scale. In theory it would be possible to conceive an entirely free market or entirely socialistic system.

Technically in my current opinion (based on the definition of socialism) taxes are counted towards socialism under certain conditions. They are counted when they are used to control the means of production and/or the means of distribution (though a very strong argument could be made that without even being spent they do this partly). Thus government control/ownership is the key rather than just taxation statistics. A very rough rule, in my opinion, of determining which side of the scale a mixed economy is on:

If over half the economy is controlled, both in the distribution of wealth and the means of production by the government then it is socialism.
If the opposite is true it is generally a free market or capitalist economy (though it is a mixed version of it unless 0% government control/ownership).

If it were somehow exactly equal it would be exactly a hybrid of each.

So if taxes were above 50% on everyone (in a hypothetical example). The taxes would probably be counted towards a socialist system if everything else in the economy were at least 50.001% controlled or owned by the government.
 
Originally posted by Free Enterprise


That would rarely be enough to be classified as a socialist economy in my opinion. I would call that a mixed economy with a capitalist tilt (looking only at the taxes in that scenario). In fact very few economies are really more socialist than capitalist (and for clear reasons too).
Most are a mixed economy that are more on the capitalist side of the scale. In theory it would be possible to conceive an entirely free market or entirely socialistic system.
Click to expand...


Ok, I get your point, but when it reaches 50%+, wouldnt that be more like communism?
 
In communism it is essentially 100%. You own nothing, the state owns everything.
 
"have you gone a good week without a good justifcation"

Basiclly everyone justifces themselves beacause its easy and it makes them feel good. Socialists exists because human have free will that they can choose to be socialists. Why would some one want to be a socialist, well just ask one.

Ps I classify myself as a "compassionte Randite"
 
I dont think thats quite true. In fact, a post-Soviet Union quote from Russia was that "Under communism, we had plenty of money but no food, and under capitalism we have lots of food in market, but cant afford it"
 
Originally posted by Pirate


The point of socialism is that there are some things that aren't yours to "own" in the first place.
Click to expand...

Very precisely. Although capitalism works on the idea of right to property, the actual ownership of property is the most scandalous and theiving of all the enterprises. It is claimed that you should own what you have created, but who can honestly thus take credit for owning a mountain and suggesting you created this, and also of the inherent right to do with it as you please. A farmer may work his land to yield the crops, but he is merely a small part in the extraordinarily complex process of the creation of life, and to take credit for the workings of the earth would be well theft. So then one asks who "owns" the Earth. Good question, how the hell can you own things such as land, and for that matter...matter. So it is thus argued, "I own the work that I put into the process". How do you own work? How can you properly measure work. The person responsible for "flicking on the switch" of a power plant is not more responsible for the production of power than the men who built the plant, just as a farmer is not anymore responsible for the production of food, when he "flicks on the switch" of growth in what we determine edible. The point is that the system relys on the assumption that value can be accredited, where it is simply impossible for credit to be accurately measured.

Thus the fatal flaw of the capitalist system, lying within the very bedrock of what makes it "run". That is property.

Not that socialism would work a lot better, but there are many who seem to take this religiously Randian view that the system which they aspire is infallable, and thus is the ultimate good, and thus all else must henceforth be considered evil. But if the system is indeed fallible, than the idea of the "opposing" system being "evil" begins to whither and die.

Does this mean an all out socialist revolution would make things better? Of course not. What it means is that the capitalist philosophers must be...here it comes...humble, as to what they are saying. There is likely an absolute of some sort in the universe, but to presume that you have already found it and thus to fight the philosophical battle to the "death" is a classic case of hubris gone awry.
 
Originally posted by Norlamand
In communism it is essentially 100%. You own nothing, the state owns everything.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's fascism. Under Communism, "the people" own everything...so in other words, you are correct. "The people" here meaning "Stalin".
 
Originally posted by Benderino


The Democrats are far from socialists.
Click to expand...

Not by the words they say, but by the things they do.

It is the Democrats' goal to create a dependency class in the United States, which will, with the expansion of that state, give them absolute control over this country.'

Dictators do this to a degree - create a class of people that love their leader and make sure it is big enough to keep them in power and put down the people that hate him - the people that seek individual achievement.

If Reagan had not been elected, there may very well still be a 80 percent or higher top federal tax rate. That is scary. There is no other word to describe it.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe


Not by the words they say, but by the things they do.

It is the Democrats' goal to create a dependency class in the United States, which will, with the expansion of that state, give them absolute control over this country.'
Click to expand...

Where do you get this garbage from? The trash can I would think.
 
I get it from reality. Does anyone remember what welfare was like before?

"No job? No problem! Here's the check."

"We're giving you an apartment, but there's only one condition: you can't pee in the elevator. Psst, even if you do, we won't do anything about it."

You'd really love a thief if he could break into people's houses, steal stuff, give it to you, and not face any consequences, right? Welcome to the Democratic party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom