Can we Create an America that can Lead the World

[Ned]

A real communist paradise would totally dispense with money and property rights. These are outmoded concepts that are linked to an archaic capitalist past. After all, everything is the common resource for all. If one needs a car, one stands in line to get one. If you park it at your destination, someone else then can take it and use it. When you want to return, you simply take some else's car.

Also, we should add that noone should be compelled to work. That would be unjust because we have learned from our Stalinist past.

And so what if noone works. This is a communist paradise where everything of value grows on trees.

[Velociryx]

Yes, what you say is entirely true. Absolutely no denying that.

And here's something else there's no denying.

The class you are born into? That's not where you have to stay!

This might come as a shock to ya, but if you get out there and make some sacrifices and work hard, you can improve your situation!

It takes effort, but is entirely doable, and the more effort you put into it, the faster it happens.

Try doing that in your communist utopia, comrade, and good luck....

Here's another thing you're hell bent on denying:

Just because a fellow I know may have been born with more opportunity than me (cos his parents had more money) doesn't mean I don't HAVE opportunities....I have different opportunities, perhaps even lesser opportunities, but I still have plenty! More than I can use, truth be told! So what does it matter?

And here's something else:

In this evil, totally corrupt system we have, there are government sponsored programs that give away billions of dollars every year to help level the playing field, giving people born with fewer opportunities a variety of ways to dramatically improve themselves (low interest loans, grants for a *staggering* variety of purposes, professional expertise for business planning....the works!) - the rich kids don't get any of this stuff.

-=Vel=-
(still waiting on your answer tho, with regards to what gives you the right to dictate to me, what I can or cannot do for my own children)

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Duncan, when did I *ever* say my son would be your son's boss? Stop makin' stuff up and debate the issues before you!

Since I never said that (and never would have), let's go back to the issue AT HAND.

If I wish to give my children my accumulated wealth, who are you to tell me I cannot? How would you even know if I did? You gonna plant a spy camera in my house so you can keep tabs on me to make sure I don't do something like that?

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by obiwan18
-DuncanK

Where does American society come into this? Are you saying that American society = Protestantism?

Secondly, I'll agree with Iron Chancellor. Protestantism may empathise individual faith, this is a far sight from your 'rugged individualism.'

Any halfway decent Protestant pastor will say that faith without works is dead. If you truly love God, you will show your love through your actions and your deeds.

Since you made the claim that Protestantism teaches individualism, can you cite a Biblical quotation that proves your point?

I don't know if protestantism is the same in Canada? I don't know any Bible verses off hand. It's a general believe that people are poor because they are lazy, and being lazy is a sin.

I'm not an expert in this area. But the fact is well known with historians.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The class you are born into? That's not where you have to stay!

Let's clear this up. I admit there is the smallest chance to move up into higher class. If I try though, it is by no means certain that I will move to a higher class. So to say that I don't have to stay in lower class is only true by chance and on a case by case basis. The fact remains that the higher class that you are born into the more opportunity you have, which is still classism.

Originally posted by Velociryx
In this evil, totally corrupt system we have, there are government sponsored programs that give away billions of dollars every year to help level the playing field, giving people born with fewer opportunities a variety of ways to dramatically improve themselves (low interest loans, grants for a *staggering* variety of purposes, professional expertise for business planning....the works!) - the rich kids don't get any of this stuff.

I'm saying that we need to do more to make opportunity equal, not that attempts aren't made already. Just that they aren't enough.

Originally posted by Velociryx
(still waiting on your answer tho, with regards to what gives you the right to dictate to me, what I can or cannot do for my own children)

-=Vel=-

Nothing I can do. However, if the law were changed, the law would be just in its execution by the simple fact the opportunity was never equal and you exploited the labor of the working class to obtain the fruits of their labor. By no means should this make it your childrens right to further exploit another generation of the working poor.

[Japher]

I don't know if protestantism is the same in Canada? I don't know any Bible verses off hand. It's a general believe that people are poor because they are lazy, and being lazy is a sin.

I'm not an expert in this area. But the fact is well known with historians.

Sounds like a load of crock to me.

I would sooner say that most lazy people do not progress in society (finacially as well). I know plenty of lazy people who are rich. Yet, the became rich because of who they were born to. I also know a lot of people who work their butts of, at least more than I do, and still make and have less than I have.

I disagree with welfare, but am all for unemployment. I don't think lazy people deserve anything, yet somehow they tend to get more for less... I think thats pretty clever of them...

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned
A real communist paradise would totally dispense with money and property rights. These are outmoded concepts that are linked to an archaic capitalist past. After all, everything is the common resource for all. If one needs a car, one stands in line to get one. If you park it at your destination, someone else then can take it and use it. When you want to return, you simply take some else's car.

Also, we should add that noone should be compelled to work. That would be unjust because we have learned from our Stalinist past.

And so what if noone works. This is a communist paradise where everything of value grows on trees.

As I've told you before. This is ridiculous. Some one can not just take your car. That is anarchy. Get it straight.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Japher


Sounds like a load of crock to me.

And that it is Japher

[Ben Kenobi]

But the fact is well known with historians.

DuncanK

Historians = Engels & Marx?

[DuncanK]

Those are two very goods ones. But I was refering to mainstream historians

[Velociryx]

Well, then we will have to agree to disagree, and in this, I think we disagree on a couple of fundamental points, which are these:

1) My argument is focused on individual choices. What you choose to do is your business. What I choose to do is my busienss. (within the framework of the law, of course). Your argument is founded on the belief that someone (the state, presumably) should watch everyone closely, to make sure no one does anything "improper" while no one is looking --improper being some awful crime like charging rent for the use of a tool, or giving a child a portion of my accumulated wealth.

2) My argument is based on the belief that private ownership of property is a good thing, because private property is well used, and well maintained property. You believe that private property is bad, and if I have a saw, and you need it, you should have every right to come on over and grab it.

3) My argument is based on the notion that hard work should be rewarded. Your argument is based on the notion that no matter what the level of effort, all outcomes should be the same.

4) My argument is based on the certain knowledge that if you begin this life in poverty, you need not stay there, and that, in fact, it is almost impossible TO stay there if you apply yourself. Your argument is based on the "fact" (for which you have yet to provide the first shred of evidence) that there is effectively no social mobility in this country. You believe there are Haves, and Have-nots, and there is very little chance for a person with limited means to advance himself.

5) My argument is based on the actual definition of the word "exploit." which means to take underhanded advantage of. Given that you are a consenting adult, if you agree to a contract (your time x for y dollars), and both parties abide by that contract, then there can be no exploitation. You seem to have some fantasy definition of exploitation which places manual, physical labor as the pinnicle of human achievement, and totally discount creativity and innovation. You also seem to have the misplaced belief that no matter what the conditions, if a person physically WORKS to create something, even if the effort needed is scant, then that person is entitled to the lion's share of the profit from what was made. The fact that others provided the materials, a place to create, machinery needed, and other tools is, to you, entirely incidental and not worthy of consideration.

There is no reconciling these positions. Your beliefs are, no doubt well intended, but sorely misguided.

-=Vel=-
PS: And for the record, you have to try really hard NOT to advance, if you find yourself starting at the bottom rung of the social ladder in this country.

That's the fact.

PPS: No, you're contradicting yourself again, Duncan....if you do not believe in private property, then you cannot OWN a car. It's community property....get it straight....

-V.

[DuncanK]

This thread should die now

[Ben Kenobi]

But I was refering to mainstream historians

DuncanK

Do you have a name for these mainstream historians?

This thread should die now.

To quote Boris-
such impotence!

[DuncanK]

go get a high school textbook on US history obiwan.

[Az]

3) My argument is based on the notion that hard work should be rewarded. Your argument is based on the notion that no matter what the level of effort, all outcomes should be the same.

not true.

2) My argument is based on the belief that private ownership of property is a good thing, because private property is well used, and well maintained property. You believe that private property is bad, and if I have a saw, and you need it, you should have every right to come on over and grab it.

No, the belief is that if we live in a neighbourhood, and each one pays a buck, everyone will have a saw when he or she needs one, because saws are rarely used.

Vel, you keep strawmanning, and hyperboling. please stop.