Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
My main difference from what you wrote is that you seem to think that life has to be made fair, even if it means doing so at the expense of those who succeeded where others failed. What you fail to recognise is that it is not 'fair' to those who have succeeded to take away what they have made and give it to others who made nothing. That's communism, and it is evil.
The other thing I object to is your statement that it is not right for an individual to amass sufficient wealth to 'buy a country'. Nonsense. A person should be allowed to be as successful as they can manage to be, and no one should try to take away from them the fruits of their labors. Most of these successful people give away vast sums of money to charities, so there is no need to have a government steal yet more from them to 'redistribute' their wealth. These wealthy people have to buy goods and services anyways, and the money they spend will drive the economy, and don't forget that their bank accounts are what banks lend to entrepreneurs and such.
When you institute draconian policies and confiscatory tax rates, you only encourage these wealthy, the backbone of your economy, to hide their assets and flee to nations that do not despise them. How does that help? 
Busy as I am lately, I had to refrain from my discussions for a while, but Im glad that I found a little time to make a move in this particular thread. So here is my rebuttal, as promised.
FearlessLeader, first and foremost I would like to talk a little bit with you about communism. See, from this answer, some of the previous, and some of the later you sent, I am under the impression that you believe that communism is intrinsically evil. That it is inherently dictatorial, and a diabolical plague meant to scorch earth. Is that what you think?
If my impression is correct, than I would like to assure you that your approach is simplistic. See, communism is an economical proposition, not a political one. It means that communism can be adopted in democracies as well as in dictatorships. Please acknowledge that what the world have witnessed so far was not communism, but
socialism. And the difference is enormous.
About socialism first
well, it requires strong governments. STRONG, not necessarily dictatorial, but in real life we never really saw one socialistic nation that wasnt a dictatorship. Mainly, I believe, because socialism (as well as communism) was never meant to be introduced by revolution (the name revolution from the proletarians is an mere allegory), but to develop over time. An armed revolution is a political action, that in a certain moment interfered in the economical stance
an error that we now can see the consequences of.
But please do not think that the fact that it was not done so far means that we can never do it.
Now communism, as proposed by Marx, would imply a far LESS powerful government than the present ones, because it relies on the development of a contentiousness from the citizens, that will do their duty correctly for the good of the society, knowing that will increase not only theirs, but everyones share.
Now, we can discuss if this is realistic or not, sure, but it would be another discussion. What I am trying to do now is show that communism is not an evil plot or something like that.
A person as worried as you seen to be about the evils of the governments should really like the idea of communism instead of hating it.
And if what I said is not enough, please remember that there were and still are capitalist nations that are dictatorial. Iraq is an example. My own country, Brazil, were dictatorial during the late 60s, the entire 70s and some of the 80s
while being capitalistic all the time as well as most of South America.
I can understand that you value more the reality of what happened than the sales pitch from the philosophers as you call it, but remember to take in account the bad side of capitalism as well. Not even the richest member of the communist party was as rich as Bill Gates (my all-purpose wealthy example), and certainly, no one was poorer that those pitiful human skeletons that you can find nearly dead in some Africa nations. Are you sure that capitalism is not as perverse and elitist as you think communism is?
So, hate communism if so you wish, but please, do it for the right reasons. It is only a tool, and as all tools, it can be used for the good as well as for the evil.
Now, about your specific remarks:
It is curious that you disagree with my wish of making life fair by arguing that its not fair to deprive rich people from their goods. Well, Ill assume that what you meant that I would, while being fair to the poor, end up being unfair to the rich.
If what you understood from my digressions is a full inversion of fairness, we will end up discussing sympathies. Who would you like the most to see being treated fairly, the rich or the poor? Many people would answer this differently. As for me, Id refuse that question. I think that everyone should be treated fairly, not just some. And, as it is not what happens today, that is why I am morally inclined to wish changes.
This brings me to the discussion about a mans productivity. You say that its foolish to think that a man cannot get every single penny that he manages to. What will probably surprise you, FearlessLeader, is that I agree. I think that every man has such right.
But, referring back to my first move in this discussion, notice that some men today accumulates amounts of cash that are far more than their actual production. They achieve money and resources that are spoils from their own good use of the capitalism logistic, not the expression of their personal ability to produce.
This is, as you said, fair and square, but ONLY within capitalism. As I said, I do not have, now, an alternative to the capitalism, but I am trying to think beyond the limitations of our present model. Placing the society a step higher than the economic model. Remember that we are discussing morality here, and, discussing morality, we are entitled to be transcendental.
So, its fair within capitalism. While we are a capitalistic society, I wont argue with you about this, or about the right of inheritance, because we will be topically serving justice, and I am all about higher values. At the same time, Ill be hoping for values that are even higher, like Im doing here. See, capitalism is the best SO FAR, what does not mean that it will be the best forever. I dont think Ill live to see the next best thing, but it is not enough to stop me from criticizing the wrongs I already see.
Finally, Ill address a little your perspective about governmental interferences. I think this issue in particular is secondary to what I said above, especially because Im not advocating instantaneous radical changes (as I hope I have made clear), but it deserves a few remarks.
See, we are a social species. The gathering in groups is as old as humanity itself, probably even older than humanity as we know it. I dont know if these simple gatherings can be called governments as you think, but Ill agree with that rather liberal approach for the purposes of this arguing.
Given that we cannot think of humanity without thinking of your take of government, than your conclusion that governments as the source of wars is flawed. We cannot disassociate the will to fight from the humans and lay it on the government, because, at that moment, the government, the getting together, is just the expression of instinctive behavior, the same instincts that will incline them to fight.
To my understanding, you cannot put any blame in the governmental logistic until the era when government will start making decisions that will go against the natural inclination of action
when it takes the role of leader, instead of being just an expression of instincts.
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2 talking to me:
When you institute draconian policies and confiscatory tax rates, you only encourage these wealthy, the backbone of your economy, to hide their assets and flee to nations that do not despise them. How does that help?
(...)
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2 talking to MrPresident:
But when a government oversteps its bounds and does more than defend the people it governs from other governments and maintain law within its own borders, and taxes its people to do so, then it is stealing from them.
You sound too sure of how much action can the government take at each stance. See, finding the perfect equilibrium between personal freedom and social balancing is a challenge that humanity faces since the illuminism, when, after a long time, the individual begun again to be considered something important in humanities table of values.
You said that state should only refrain people from disrespecting the law. What law? Just criminal? There are many other stances of values in the society. Most of the times, prevention is far more effective in assuring the well-being of all even the rich than repression.
Social programs, social laws, the assurance of welfare and vacations is part of government role that is to serve all, the rich and the poor. See, the almost non-interfering government that you are advocating is not something that never happened. In fact, it was the first instance of capitalism right after the industrial revolution, when the concept of laissez-faire was at its top. It, however, proved flawed, because it resulted in severe oppression of capital owners that used the economical power to impose slave-like conditions on the working classes. Check this link to
The Britannica Concise:
(French: "allow to do") Policy dictating a minimum of governmental interference in the economic affairs of individuals and society. It was promoted by the physiocrats and strongly supported by A. Smith and J. S. Mill. Widely accepted in the 19th cent., laissez-faire assumed that the individual who pursues his own desires contributes most successfully to society as a whole. The function of the state is to maintain order and avoid interfering with individual initiative. The popularity of the laissez-faire doctrine waned in the late 19th cent., when it proved inadequate to deal with the social and economic problems caused by industrialization. See also classical economics.
It was then that people really realized that the role of the state was far more than merely wage wars and enforce criminal law. That to redistribute the wealthy is for everyones benefit, not only the poor. As our colleague Knowltok2 mentioned above, no one wants riots asking for the French revolution ideals in the front door... its smarter and cheaper to give it before they take it by revolution.
And please, do not think I am talking about draconian taxes. As I said above MANY times, I am not asking for anything that will be a violation of our present system. I am just proposing an evaluation of that very system and the search for better alternatives.
Or, to close with short sentence, I am just thinking of morality above everything else.
Regards
.
You mean, human nature is against communism? 
