Can you have utopia (as described) without socialism? (ethic, millionaires, economic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know the answer to your first question. I do know the course we are on is unsustainable. As far as your "natural differential" question, I think 100 times more is far too much. I think you should be able to earn a reward that ensures that you and your family can live a life of luxury even if you never lift a finger again. But amassing huge personal fortunes is obscene and immoral IMO.
envy. "You’ve got something I want. I can never possess it. So, I’m going to destroy what you have. I don’t want anyone to have it until everyone can have it."
Socialism is more about jealousy and spreading the misery than it is about spreading the wealth.
What pushes the masses into the camp of socialism is, even more than the illusion that socialism will make them richer, the expectation that it will curb all those who are better than they themselves are.
-- Ludwig von Mises
I don't know the answer to your first question. I do know the course we are on is unsustainable. As far as your "natural differential" question, I think 100 times more is far too much. I think you should be able to earn a reward that ensures that you and your family can live a life of luxury even if you never lift a finger again. But amassing huge personal fortunes is obscene and immoral IMO.
Modem socialism is the politics of envy. The socialist knows that there aren't enough rich people to support all the poor people of the world. He knows that government programs of wealth-redistribution cannot uplift the vast majority. But that doesn't convince him to abandon socialism.
He likes socialism because he thinks that socialism will close the "wealth-poverty gap", not because the poor have risen, but because the rich have been pulled down to the level of the poor.
I don't think there is a way to achieve this kind of utopian society without socialism. I would like to hear someone argue differently.
Socialism is an evil philosophy in action. It is NOT driven by altruism; it's driven by greed and jealousy. Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist.
It turns government into God, it legalizes thievery and it elevates covetousness, a very strong desire for something that you do not have and especially for something that belongs to someone else.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
-- W. Churchill
The socialist knows that there aren't enough rich people to support all the poor people of the world. He knows that government programs of wealth-redistribution cannot uplift the vast majority of men.
You are wrong on both counts. The numbers work and still allow the rich to remain rich just not ultra rich. Social democracy is driven by compassion and practicality, not envy. My tax burden would increase but I believe that sharing the bounty with those less fortunate is the right thing to do. Capitalism needs limits or the greed of many that prosper outweighs their compassion for those that don't.
Well the US agreed to provide free police to the entire world. Still not everybody is as successful as those 3 countries.
Great. If their socialism is so "successful", why can't it succeed just as socialism; i.e. without this indirect parasitism off of a capitalist country.
You are wrong on both counts. The numbers work and still allow the rich to remain rich just not ultra rich. Social democracy is driven by compassion and practicality, not envy. My tax burden would increase but I believe that sharing the bounty with those less fortunate is the right thing to do. Capitalism needs limits or the greed of many that prosper outweighs their compassion for those that don't.
Socialist do not understand human nature. and history has shown over and over that socialism does not work. For socialism to work, people would have to be genetically hardwired to suppress their individual self-interest for the good of the larger group, something that rarely happens. Take for example, the dead beat dad, we have a large group of them that does not care about their "own" children how can they suppress their self interest for anyone else? And you think we can force everyone to buy into socialism. Only if they are sold on a bunch of lies and misconceptions.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
-- W. Churchill
Even many of the 1% when interviewed say they don't need all that money. Ie: people like Bill Gates give huge amounts of it away. I remember hearing an interview with some billionaire - that once his income reached the double digit millions - it became impossible for him to spend it down because it generated enough income to grow well beyond the spending of himself and his family no matter how much they spent. Unless you're like Michael Jackson and you just foolishly mismanage your money and your spending includes private theme parks and child molestation settlements - you can't stop making it once you reach a kind of critical mass.
They don't want to become more rich, unless they're narcissisists like Donald Trump from whom it's not the money but the competition and ego boost he gets. The system just continues to pour money their way, though.
Of course there are some people who would be gluttonous but that 's not a majority of people, not even a significant minority.
You are wrong on both counts. The numbers work and still allow the rich to remain rich just not ultra rich. Social democracy is driven by compassion and practicality, not envy. My tax burden would increase but I believe that sharing the bounty with those less fortunate is the right thing to do. Capitalism needs limits or the greed of many that prosper outweighs their compassion for those that don't.
I'll be blunt and honest. If I can not benefit from my own labor or idea's I'm just going to collect from those who will. Try getting me to do anything more than I absolutely have to? Do you think others aren't going to do the same thing. NEWS FLASH... they are already amongst us.
Even many of the 1% when interviewed say they don't need all that money. Ie: people like Bill Gates give huge amounts of it away. I remember hearing an interview with some billionaire - that once his income reached the double digit millions - it became impossible for him to spend it down because it generated enough income to grow well beyond the spending of himself and his family no matter how much they spent. Unless you're like Michael Jackson and you just foolishly mismanage your money and your spending includes private theme parks and child molestation settlements - you can't stop making it once you reach a kind of critical mass.
They don't want to become more rich, unless they're narcissisists like Donald Trump from whom it's not the money but the competition and ego boost he gets. The system just continues to pour money their way, though.
Of course there are some people who would be gluttonous but that 's not a majority of people, not even a significant minority.
The trouble with your belief is that people like Gates, Buffett, etc. talk a good game, but don't put their money where their mouth is.
Sure they give to charity, and should be commended for it. HOWEVER, if they believe the wealthier people, especially the uber rich like themselves should pay more taxes, NOTHING is preventing them from doing so. They could right a check tomorrow for millions or even billions to the IRS.
So you ever wonder why they don't Simple, they know the government bureaucracy is bloated, wasteful, and that much of the money will go to pay for things they do not personally value. Therefore they give to charities whether others think they are as worthwhile or not. In my view it is there money, and they are entitled to do with it what they choose.
However when millions/billions are going to the poor of 3rd world countries instead staying right here helping our own poor, what do you call that?
What do you call it when the "taxes should be raised on the rich to help the poor" refrain is meant to have other peoples money go to funding the government waste machine, but not theirs?
Simple, it is blatant hypocrisy packaged in their other good targeted charity deeds.
A few million is fine. Hundreds of millions can't be justified IMO. It's not a game. It's not just a meaningless score. Other people are living in far less as detailed by another poster. Compassion and ethics are not mandates but I think they should be.
Okay. Who gets to define "compassion" and "ethics?" Who has the right to force other people to be compassionate and ethical? Are these things not personal choices?
What about motivation? If people aren't free to pursue their ideas with the hope of unlimited "rewards," why even take the time and energy to innovate?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simple, they know the government bureaucracy is bloated, wasteful, and that much of the money will go to pay for things they do not personally value. Therefore they give to charities whether others think they are as worthwhile or not. In my view it is there money, and they are entitled to do with it what they choose.
