Communists, Don't Fear the Reaper....:D

[Berzerker]

Might as well debate Flubber, Kid has been very active and probably needs a break.

Now starting condition matters, ( and I am probably to the left of Vel on this point) so I have no real objection to the fact that my taxes on what I earn are a bit higher to create a social safety net such that everyone starts from an acceptable level. I believe in a strong social safety net for those less fortunate.

While I resent all the outrageous spending that the re-distribution of wealth people have brought us in the name of a safety net I don't mind paying taxes to help people truly in need. But now we see people truly in need paying taxes to support everyone else's agenda - ironic leftists don't see that. But it would be more efficient to run these programs as
de-centralised as possible and the left wants greater concentration at the federal level.

However, what I don't mind doing myself doesn't create for me a right to compel you to "not mind" and do it too. I'm not being asked to "help" fund this safety net, I'm being asked to help y'all force others to fund it and I have a problem with.

[Flubber]

My bottom line on all this


I want my personal freedom. When you start intruding into my life to the extent proposed by kidicious, your system loses any legitimacy to me.

I better be taken out in that swift blow against the counter-revoltionaries, kid, cause otherwise you'll be seeing a LOT of results of my efforts.
-------------------------------------------------------

I'm not worried though since this is a hopeless pipe-dream of an impractical theorist who seems to be embittered by some life experience or another

[Berzerker]

It wouldn't be necessary for you to help him. That's the beauty of communism. He doesn't need you anymore.

He'll need you. But he won't have the option of needing you whereas he does have that option with Flubber.

[Sandman]

Sums up this thread, really.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Might as well debate Flubber, Kid has been very active and probably needs a break.



While I resent all the outrageous spending that the re-distribution of wealth people have brought us in the name of a safety net I don't mind paying taxes to help people truly in need. But now we see people truly in need paying taxes to support everyone else's agenda - ironic leftists don't see that. But it would be more efficient to run these programs as
de-centralised as possible and the left wants greater concentration at the federal level.

However, what I don't mind doing myself doesn't create for me a right to compel you to "not mind" and do it too. I'm not being asked to "help" fund this safety net, I'm being asked to help y'all force others to fund it and I have a problem with.

debate me? I think you simply stated my view better than I did. Likewise I don't mind my taxes going to help people but abused programs and government waste and graft have often left me furious to the point that I don't see higher taxes accomplishing the goal of helping the less fortunate.

and it rots my socks to see the low income working mother paying taxes that goes to pay welfare to an able-bodied lazy-ass

[Flubber]

Night all

I'll be back in the morning ( 2 am here now) to once again chant "is not" in response to kidiciious's expected "is too"

[Alexander's Horse]

somebody has way too much time on his hands

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious
However, if I go down to Walmart looking for a job I can't ask for more than minimum wage, because they don't have time for that. They have hundreds of applicants to choose from. I have no power to negotiate for my wage. They have all the power. That's exploitation. If I have to have a job, then I have to take their minimum wage and act like I like it. My boss can be an *******, I have to say "yes sir, it won't happen again." I might as well be forced into it. It makes no difference to me. Either way I want to be paid more, because that's what I really need. Some respect would be nice too.

The reason there's not negotiation for wages for such jobs is that the legally mandated minimum wage pushes the wage above what the free interplay of market forces would arrive at*. But I thought that was what you wanted - a centrally mandated wage equal for everybody?

* Only an idiot could construe this as an attack on the minimum wage, but since the world appears to be stuffed by idiots, I should perhaps point out that I'm not here arguing either for or against the minimum wage.

[Agathon]

Jesus.

I've spent the entire evening trying to deal with a hellish passage in Plato (for those in the know, it's the account of the Soul in the Timaeus - pity me), so I'm all argued out.

I can say that when I lived in a heavily welfare statist society the government didn't come around locking people up for no reason or telling them what clothes to wear. No one would have listened if they did anyway. Bringing up some Stalinist horror is just an exaggeration. I don't understand why people are frightened of the government. Even the US government doesn't really give a fig about political radicals.

It's amazing how right wingers who consistently accuse the state of being unable to organize anything efficiently, seem to be able to reconcile that with the belief that the same state is capable of mounting the most ruthlessly efficient surveillance of its own citizens.

No one cares what people think in a capitalist democracy because they know that the only electoral choices which stand a chance of being instituted right now are variations on capitalism. There is a broad consensus about that, which is what makes free speech relatively harmless.

On the other hand, historical communist states have had the problem that they were trying to institute a system which requires advanced information technology that they didn't have. It was kind of like trying to replace the English monarchy in 1300 with democracy without the printing press.

[Last Conformist]

@Aggie: It's not usually the commies one needs tell let Stalin lie in these debates, but just shut up about him, will you?

[Agathon]

But he was a great man!

[aneeshm]

Clarifying the position

I've been reading the entire thread (and the price gouging one) for the past two hours . I'd like to ask Kidicious a question so that I myself am clear about his position .

Imagine that the revolution has come and gone , and the egalitarian utopia is in place . Now , there is a family that realises that some industries have been mistakenly appointed with rather incompetent people . They know that these industries will not last long under the present management (happens all the time in the business world due to incompetence , can happen in an utopia , too) . They realise that those products' prices will rise because of increased demand when the industries are no longer able to meet it .

Say that product is potato chips . Now , they also realises there is an oppurtinity to make money here . They realise that , working at a very local level , they can run the industry as a cottage industry from their own house/home/residence . They convert the garage/attic into a small-scale production centre for chips . Note that no workers are involved , so no exploitation can take place (everything is done by family members mandated to be too young (13 to 17) or too old (65 +) to have a job , or those not working ) . The family business thrives , and the local people spend their money on this family's brand of chips instead of the nationalised industry . Then , when the natinalised business collapses (because of many such family businesses coming up over the country) , they decide to expand . For that , they need more people to work . They invite other family members to work for them (some of them were in the now-defunct nationalised chips business) , and offer the wage the state was offering them . Soon , this family becomes richer than the others of the neighbourhood because of their own hard work (note that there was no exploitation of workers , because they all work for themselves , on the side , and voluntarily ) .

But their neighbours are not that rich , because they did not have the same ideas as this family . So now , does this fmaily have an "unfair advantage" because their children are better educated ( they can afford better education material) and have the best toys and a bigger hoem because they can afford it . Their children also have it easier because they ahve positions ready for them in the famiily business .

Tell me , Kidicious , is this situation fair or unfair ?

I'm not even attaking you , I just want to know your opinions on this .

As a side note , have you read "Atlas Shrugged" ?

[Kidlicious]

Re: Clarifying the position

Originally posted by aneeshm
Tell me , Kidicious , is this situation fair or unfair ?

Tough one. I would say fair, because the world has the power in this situation. It would be impossible for the family to get ahead like that in the first place. But if they did the world would have all the power to balance things out.

As a side note , have you read "Atlas Shrugged" ?

No

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

The reason there's not negotiation for wages for such jobs is that the legally mandated minimum wage pushes the wage above what the free interplay of market forces would arrive at*. But I thought that was what you wanted - a centrally mandated wage equal for everybody?

True, but the wage would be lower without the wage floor.

[Agathon]

Do you know that Wal-Mart is an encouraging sign for communists everywhere?