Is profit different from unfair tax?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Who are you to tell people that they should arbitrarily mow their own lawns?! Is that not work? I mean, is not the act of mowing a lawn work? And if so, then it falls under the EXACT same "equality yardstick" as every other kind of work

Thus, per your definition, if someone is mowing lawns and making less per hour than the brain surgeon, that person is being exploited, is he, or is he not?

-=Vel=-

Hey if I'm going to mow your lawn you better mow mine. And my lawn better be just as big as yours

People shouldn't mow lawns for a living. That in itself is exploitive the way I see it. Judgement call I guess.

[Velociryx]

Okay, if you don't like that example, then we'll switch to picking lettuce. Should everyone have to pick their own lettuce too? If that is an acceptable example to you, then should not the lettuce picker make the same, or extremely close to the per hour wage of the brain surgeon. That IS the sort of equality you're preaching, yes?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Okay, if you don't like that example, then we'll switch to picking lettuce. Should everyone have to pick their own lettuce too? If that is an acceptable example to you, then should not the lettuce picker make the same, or extremely close to the per hour wage of the brain surgeon. That IS the sort of equality you're preaching, yes?

-=Vel=-

The surgeon should be compensated for his training and his value to society. The lettuce picker should be compensated for doing a hard job. I don't know how they would compare. People shouldn't be forced to do either one. They should be happy to do the job for the compensation and society should also be happy that they aren't getting too much.

[Velociryx]

That sounds like a waffle answer from the guy who, not two pages ago, said that wages should be at or near equal for everyone.

Having a change of heart now that you're confronted by actual jobs to compare?

I can certainly understand why, because when you get down to the brass tacks of it, your whole strange notion of "equality" simply falls apart. I don't blame you a bit for not wanting to stand too close to it as it collapses.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
That sounds like a waffle answer from the guy who, not two pages ago, said that wages should be at or near equal for everyone.

Having a change of heart now that you're confronted by actual jobs to compare?

I can certainly understand why, because when you get down to the brass tacks of it, your whole strange notion of "equality" simply falls apart. I don't blame you a bit for not wanting to stand too close to it as it collapses.

-=Vel=-

As you have already established all work is not equal. So I don't see the problem. I never said that people should recieve the same compensation for different work.

[Berzerker]

Only world communism works.

Communism won't work on a smaller scale but it will on a world scale?

[Velociryx]

TELL me you're kidding?

The entire crux of this worn-out argument is that people who make more money are in a position to be exploitive of people who make less money.

Time and time again when you spout this mantra, the cry is for at or near equal wages for everyone. Universally equal wages, regardless of the work, so that nobody is in a position to exploit anybody else.

Or do you now not recall ever having said anything resembling that?

:: shakes head, amazed::

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Berz - Exactly.....it's proven to be heinously broken on the micro scale, so obviously the solution is to globalize the broken system!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Berz - Exactly.....it's proven to be heinously broken on the micro scale, so obviously the solution is to globalize the broken system!

-=Vel=-

It's about class struggle. It's not about how one state has done compared to another. When there are no more states the workers will control the means of production. Not before. By definition there can be no communist govt while the capitalists control the world.

[Velociryx]

Didn't wanna touch that other reply I see....prolly for the best...

As to the rest. A bit of advice then? Don't hold your breath waiting for the glorious revolution to come, 'k?

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

It's about class struggle. It's not about how one state has done compared to another. When there are no more states the workers will control the means of production. Not before. By definition there can be no communist govt while the capitalists control the world.

Why do you think the "capitalists" control the world? Because the communists could not compete. And you conclude from this that communism is the superior system when it couldn't even compete with this "failure" called capitalism? Tell us Kid, how many people will have to be slaughtered to achieve your goal of worldwide communism? I guess you wouldn't know because that depends on how many people resist having y'all run their lives...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Didn't wanna touch that other reply I see....prolly for the best...

I reply to everything of importance.

Originally posted by Velociryx
As to the rest. A bit of advice then? Don't hold your breath waiting for the glorious revolution to come, 'k?

-=Vel=-

Don't expect capitalism to hold on much longer.

[Velociryx]

No...you reply to everything that doesn't shoot gigantic holes in your argument. The stuff that shatters your arguments, you conveniently ignore. Can't say I blame you...a bit difficult to debate a position once it has been thoroughly gutted, and given the track record of your communist utopia, I'd say the big red pony is about as beaten to death as a creature could possibly be.

Oh....in another of these threads, you mentioned that you were unemployed.

We're equal now...me too. I walked away from my job on my 35th birthday, knowing that the job market sucks. So now we're alllll nice and equal.

This will make a good experiment, I think.

You keep applying the principles YOU cling to, and I'll apply mine. We'll compare notes in the weeks ahead and see how we both fare. Since we're starting off on an equal footing (both unemployed) that's about as "fair" as it gets, yes?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why do you think the "capitalists" control the world? Because the communists could not compete.

The time was not right.

Originally posted by Berzerker
And you conclude from this that communism is the superior system when it couldn't even compete with this "failure" called capitalism?

Communism is the superior system because it will be the world system long after the ashes of capitalism have blown away. Much the same way that capitalism is superior to Feudalism.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Tell us Kid, how many people will have to be slaughtered to achieve your goal of worldwide communism? I guess you wouldn't know because that depends on how many people resist having y'all run their lives...

Not many people will have to die, and not many people will resist. It will be plain that capitalism is a huge failure. That's not to say that there won't be suffering, but the suffering will be caused by the failure of the old system.

[Velociryx]

Just like it'll one day be plain that "electricity" was a huge failure, and we'll all go back to the good ol' days, eh Kid?

-=Vel=-

PS: Oh, and...see my reply above.