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.
The vast majority of people want to be governed in some way. They recognize that an orderly society benefits us all. So they (we) want a government that reflects our values and has the resources required to protect our values.
I think it is obvious there is no agreement on what an ideal government is. But we also recognize ideal is not possible so we accept all kinds of things. And if we have a democratic style of government we can influence our government.
The problem with your statement is that it doesn't define what the needs are that people can't manage individually. Your question about taxes was a response to a post about voluntary charity. And since this thread is about socialism - what are you trying to say?
I'm trying to say exactly what you are: that nobody agrees on the role of government in society so there are varying degrees of such. My point is: socialism is no more charity than what you think is capitalism, just varying ratios of social vs. individual responsibilities. And as you said, humans (and other mammals) figured out millions of years ago that life was a lot better in groups, where the burden of survival and happiness was spread across many and not one. So why not try to work together a little more and see what it accomplishes, other nations have succeeded and prospered in doing just that. Many facets of capitalism that have been beaten into your head as gospel, such as "rich people are job creators," are patently false.
There is no reason the richest and most powerful awesomest country on Earth should have more than a quarter of its children on food stamps. Lets admit riding the rollercoaster of the stock market and seeing trillions of dollars in losses every 7 years isnt sustainable, let alone a success.
Life isnt fair, taxes arent fair, government isnt fair. Stop worrying about whats fair and ask yourself whats better for me, my family, my community, and my country. Because im telling you right now, when you're lying on your death bed after a life that was 1/3 work, 1/3 sleep, and 1/3 stress, the thought that some born-into-royalty oligarch didnt have to increase his effective tax rate by 2% will not be a comforting one.
And what should be the sole responsibility of those workers?
the sole responsibility of those workers is to take care of themselves. In the time left they might take care of responsibilities assigned to them by their department.
the sole responsibility of those workers is to take care of themselves. In the time left they might take care of responsibilities assigned to them by their department.
so working isnt the primary responsibility of a government worker?
I'm trying to say exactly what you are: that nobody agrees on the role of government in society so there are varying degrees of such. My point is: socialism is no more charity than what you think is capitalism, just varying ratios of social vs. individual responsibilities. And as you said, humans (and other mammals) figured out millions of years ago that life was a lot better in groups, where the burden of survival and happiness was spread across many and not one. So why not try to work together a little more and see what it accomplishes, other nations have succeeded and prospered in doing just that. Many facets of capitalism that have been beaten into your head as gospel, such as "rich people are job creators," are patently false.
There is no reason the richest and most powerful awesomest country on Earth should have more than a quarter of its children on food stamps. Lets admit riding the rollercoaster of the stock market and seeing trillions of dollars in losses every 7 years isnt sustainable, let alone a success.
Life isnt fair, taxes arent fair, government isnt fair. Stop worrying about whats fair and ask yourself whats better for me, my family, my community, and my country. Because im telling you right now, when you're lying on your death bed after a life that was 1/3 work, 1/3 sleep, and 1/3 stress, the thought that some born-into-royalty oligarch didnt have to increase his effective tax rate by 2% will not be a comforting one.
Life isn't fair. Never was, never will be. I accept that. Don't make this about taxes. Make this about what is just and reasonable.
I am not sympathetic to very rich people whining about taxes. But I also believe there is something intrinsically wrong when a large portion of our population pays no income taxes. Just about everyone (I like 80%) should contribute to the government that protects them.
The US is not the richest country though it is the most powerful (by almost any measure). Norway is richer. So are several other (mostly small) countries. We buy far more products from other places than they buy from us.
I have a core belief that the government should not create incentives for people to do really dumb things - such as have children if you can't afford them. The government should not distort whenever possible how much it costs to make something. Socialism is a maximum distortion of work and wages and has never done what its believers say it will.
Preventing people from getting rich does nothing. But preventing them from getting rich by cheating or illegal means is something government should do.
I think you take "money" too literally. I believe most humans inherently want "more" - more food, more pleasure, more power, more trophies, etc. That is why we love sports. That is why musicians like to play in front of crowds instead of the mirror. That is why painters want other people to look at their work. A wine maker makes wine for himself and the people that buy it.
Money is a means to get "more." Workers are trading labor for wages so they can first satisfy their basic needs. And they are willing to do more labor for more wages so they can get "more." Everyone wants different things.
Socialism suppresses this inherent behavior. It trades achievement for some illusion of equality. And it breaks down over time because people are not satisfied with a government controlled allocation of what makes them happy. The temporary happiness of workers goes away, and instability rises over time. That is why every country that has a socialist economy is run by a dictator or near dictator. These governments suppress civil rights such as freedom of press and freedom of expression because they don't want the people to know that others have a better life. They don't want people to communicated broadly - which can drive increased power by citizens.
I don't agree. Sure, humans want to achieve something, to experience things, etc. But that is not what I am talking about. When artists want their work to be recognized, it is an ego thing, not a materialist thing. With many professions, maybe with all, there is a materialist and an immaterial aspect. The balance varies a lot, but still they are independent from each other.
I don't really agree with your view on socialist and dictatorship, either. So far all socialist experiments started way back, at a time when work did not make the masses happy to begin with, it was mostly depressing, dirty, unhealthy factory jobs. What made some people happy was having paid jobs in the first place so they could buy food etc. When the shops are empty, as happened in Eastern Europe, regimes are in trouble as people start to wonder if the regime is doing the right thing, maybe even stealing money etc. and leading better lives than they are. When people feel treated unfairly, they tend to rise up and topple governments.
Nor does a system where people have a lot more necessarily mean that that system is good. But most people are not clever enough to realize, especially when they come from a regime where they had too little. So when people from Eastern Europe looked at the US in the 80s, they might have gotten the wrong idea that that is how they should live as well. Of course the US way of life is a catastrophe for the world...
Theres no point in trying to have a rational discussion when you think our current system is the best available, despite the richest nations employing socialism.
Its like a guy who keeps buying a Dodge everytime one of them breaks down. Hes never gonna buy something different because he reminisces about the 69 Charger had got him laid half a century ago.
The world is not the same. Its time for a system that benefits more than a fraction of the population.
Put down the cold war capitalism propaganda, and take an honest look at how Germany, Norway, and Sweden do it. Its not that different than ours.
You would not like communism either. It is totally based on greed and money. Do you really think the communist bosses in Russia or North Korea were not greedy? Only a fool would think communism doesn't have money as a goal. Communism rewards greed. Every government has winners and losers and communism is no different.
Greed is a human trait and has nothing to do with economic or political affiliation.
Since I am a minimalist, I would like it is a well implemented communist system. However, I am also an individualist and a communist variety that does not accept and support that would indeed not be for me. My individualism is not based on money though, but on personality, taste of music etc. I am not some stupid ant...
Theres no point in trying to have a rational discussion when you think our current system is the best available, despite the richest nations employing socialism.
Its like a guy who keeps buying a Dodge everytime one of them breaks down. Hes never gonna buy something different because he reminisces about the 69 Charger had got him laid half a century ago.
The world is not the same. Its time for a system that benefits more than a fraction of the population.
Put down the cold war capitalism propaganda, and take an honest look at how Germany, Norway, and Sweden do it. Its not that different than ours.
I can only speak for Germany, and that is indeed gradually giving up its semi-socialist ways that worked so well. Now you have more and more poverty, working poor, homeless etc., despite a booming economy. But the money is transferred from the bottom to the top, just like in the US. It is really sad...
You say people should do for a living what they want to do. What if society doesn't need what they want to do? Some people want to be art historians. If no one (or almost no one) needs art historians, why should people be paid to do something no one wants? The US may only need a few hundred art historians.
I agree not everyone is motivated by money. But money is generally required to live, and most people are motivated to stay alive. I know many people who are perfectly happy making enough money to live, doing something they like. Nothing wrong with that.
Well, nothing would change. There would still be great demand for some jobs and little demand for others. Everyone could decide to become an art historian just like today. But most will later be unemployed, just like today. So, people would still have to find a compromise between egoism and real life.
Since some people are just not bright enough to study, there will still be lots of people left to do simpler jobs. But in my utopia they will not really bother doing simple jobs as unlike today they will not be looked down upon, nor have material problems.
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.
