Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others but Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others...

[sleepy jack]

I don't see what's so bad about wealth redistribution.

[Son of JayJamJah]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I don't see what's so bad about wealth redistribution.

I can only tell you why I don't like it.

My whole life I've paid the taxes, the more I make the more I pay (higher percentage) and I get almost nothing back for my money. I've called the police or EMS a total of 2 times in my life, there are pot holes all over the roads I drive on, I have to have the city shine a light up my ass every time I want to build something or modify something on my property, never used unemployment, welfare or any other government program. And I don't like or support most of the spending our government passes.

The idea of income redistribution is the foundation of communism and socialism and the United States and all that doesn't exactly work.

Why do you think it's okay for a government to decide how the money you earn should be spent?

[sleepy jack]

First off I'd point out that saying income redistribution doesn't work is a bit silly if you're saying that from a global perspective. If you are Capitalism hasn't work out so well (particularly now for the United States) in comparison to countries operating under socialistic governments (e.g. Norway, Sweden.) If you mean just in the United States well I think that's when things get incredibly complex because you have to deal with tax policy switching under every administration, congress session, and so on. I think it has a lot to do with that inconsistency and then the problems that arise from the economic system which the United States is under - it's largely a problem of the rich's inherent advantages of the poor in the society; which they completely have. There isn't much actual redistribution in the United States. The upper class do enjoy the fruits of society far more than the lower class and most money goes to entitlements or other irresponsible spending/borrowing/wars/etc.

Anyway assuming were examining socialism from a moral perspective. My central political philosophy is in democracy and I don't believe democracy can't exist under a capitalist system. This is because democracy is, by definition, society being under popular control. Capitalism however is society being under control of those with the most fiscal power. You can see this in lobbyists and the dominance with which corporations have over elections and both parties. In a free market it becomes very easy for monopolies, oligarchies and so on to form and when they exist they became the central power as opposed to the people (this is the way it is in the United States. I don't remember the figures off the top of my head but the wealthiest in the United States control over ninety percent of the wealth. That just doesn't work. Someone in FDR's administration has this great analogy between that and some game. The gist of what was a country can't work when all the cards are in the hands of a few or maybe it was all the chess pieces. I can't remember exactly how it went.)

In addition to that I believe in economic justice. Martin Luther King once said if there's injustice anywhere then there's justice nowhere (or something to that effect) and I think that when the working class is being pissed on by the rich of a state then no one is really living in a fair society.

Now to go back specifically to how my money should be spent. I don't really believe in property (this applies to money, music, and so on.) John Locke's notion that there is such things as "property rights" always struck me as absurd because it really does interfere with everyone's rights around you and I've never understood how you can own something (other then yourself obviously, and again this, again, has to do with someone else owning you or using you would go against your own rights. The classical Liberal philosophy that your freedom ends where another person's begins is as central to Democracy to me.) I've never seen any real intellectual justification for why I should be able to own this and you can't. It contradicts my own values. I don't think property has any right, I guess I'm like the first nations in that sense.

That being said, I think the laissez-faire idea itself (ignoring the property aspect) that you and only you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor is flawed on the basis that it wasn't only you who sowed the seeds - there were others and the notion that only one individual should reap those seeds when it takes a community to maintain the field is just fundamentally wrong.

[Hesher]

I love when people agree with me. It inflates my ego even further. I'm basically a zeppelin of self-worth.

[Son of JayJamJah]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

First off I'd point out that saying income redistribution doesn't work is a bit silly if you're saying that from a global perspective. If you are Capitalism hasn't work out so well (particularly now for the United States) in comparison to countries operating under socialistic governments (e.g. Norway, Sweden.) If you mean just in the United States well I think that's when things get incredibly complex because you have to deal with tax policy switching under every administration, congress session, and so on. I think it has a lot to do with that inconsistency and then the problems that arise from the economic system which the United States is under - it's largely a problem of the rich's inherent advantages of the poor in the society; which they completely have. There isn't much actual redistribution in the United States. The upper class do enjoy the fruits of society far more than the lower class and most money goes to entitlements or other irresponsible spending/borrowing/wars/etc.

Anyway assuming were examining socialism from a moral perspective. My central political philosophy is in democracy and I don't believe democracy can't exist under a capitalist system. This is because democracy is, by definition, society being under popular control. Capitalism however is society being under control of those with the most fiscal power. You can see this in lobbyists and the dominance with which corporations have over elections and both parties. In a free market it becomes very easy for monopolies, oligarchies and so on to form and when they exist they became the central power as opposed to the people (this is the way it is in the United States. I don't remember the figures off the top of my head but the wealthiest in the United States control over ninety percent of the wealth. That just doesn't work. Someone in FDR's administration has this great analogy between that and some game. The gist of what was a country can't work when all the cards are in the hands of a few or maybe it was all the chess pieces. I can't remember exactly how it went.)

In addition to that I believe in economic justice. Martin Luther King once said if there's injustice anywhere then there's justice nowhere (or something to that effect) and I think that when the working class is being pissed on by the rich of a state then no one is really living in a fair society.

Now to go back specifically to how my money should be spent. I don't really believe in property (this applies to money, music, and so on.) John Locke's notion that there is such things as "property rights" always struck me as absurd because it really does interfere with everyone's rights around you and I've never understood how you can own something (other then yourself obviously, and again this, again, has to do with someone else owning you or using you would go against your own rights. The classical Liberal philosophy that your freedom ends where another person's begins is as central to Democracy to me.) I've never seen any real intellectual justification for why I should be able to own this and you can't. It contradicts my own values. I don't think property has any right, I guess I'm like the first nations in that sense.

That being said, I think the laissez-faire idea itself (ignoring the property aspect) that you and only you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor is flawed on the basis that it wasn't only you who sowed the seeds - there were others and the notion that only one individual should reap those seeds when it takes a community to maintain the field is just fundamentally wrong.

I'm not saying income redistribution can't work, I'm saying it's not the fairest method or one i have any faith in. Any system can work if the people buy into it.

While I find your perspective admirable in a way; I don't share any of these ideals or beliefs.

My family came here with nothing and built a life for me and my siblings that has allowed us to flourish. While the playing field is certainly slanted in favor of the wealthy to the poor, it's far from insurmountable. A strong work ethic, good decision making and an education or acquisition of a skill is all I believe anyone needs to be successful in the United States.

My philosophy is personal accountability and personal freedom of choice. I should be allowed to do whatever I want as long as it does not interfere with someone else's ability to be free.

That's the first flaw I find with your system, while it's humane and kind to want to help everyone, I'd rather be more selective as i feel like some people do not want or are not worthy of being helped.

Most of all though I believe strongly that giving someone a handout is the worst thing you can do. It robs them of motivation and accomplishment. To me it be like taking away my humanity.

[sleepy jack]

I guess there's just some fundamental differences here. I've never understood the argument that Socialism robs people of motivation because it hands everything to them on a silver platter. You can look at many socialist countries and see that isn't necessarily the case. On the opposite of that spectrum you have people who would be very wealthy in those countries and instead of immigrating to the States they stay and choose to live a non-affluent and superfluousness life. I think in both cases, the would be Bourgeois and would be Proletariat feel moral responsibility to contribute to society.

The problem I have with your idea - the American dream basically - is it seems to me to be the exception as opposed to the rule. I don't really want to get personal with this but my family, despite working hard, has never been able to climb beyond lower-middle class. The odds are completely stacked against us too. In the United States there's essentially a system of welfare for the rich and affluent and capitalism for the poor. The problem with that is capitalism is incredibly vicious and indifferent to the poor. Just look at Africa to see that.

And then here's where I see things completely different then you do. I agree you should be allowed to do what ever you want as long as you're not interfering with anyone else's freedom but I think capitalism by its very nature calls for that. It leads to a horrific division of classes where one class is under oppression constantly. In capitalism there where always be that oppressed class too - in this system people are in economic chains. I think, as long as these chains exist that no one will ever be free and justice can only exist as something purely idealistic and platonic. When politicians and so on start talking about the beauty of the free market and the American dream they're only doing so to ensure that those chains stay unnoticed.

[lucifer_sam]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I guess there's just some fundamental differences here. I've never understood the argument that Socialism robs people of motivation because it hands everything to them on a silver platter. You can look at many socialist countries and see that isn't necessarily the case. On the opposite of that spectrum you have people who would be very wealthy in those countries and instead of immigrating to the States they stay and choose to live a non-affluent and superfluousness life. I think in both cases, the would be Bourgeois and would be Proletariat feel moral responsibility to contribute to society.

The problem I have with your idea - the American dream basically - is it seems to me to be the exception as opposed to the rule. I have to move out next year so my family can keep downsizing. There's no health insurance and my step mom (the income provider) is unemployed as of two weeks ago. I don't think we've been any less hard working then most families. We've all made sacrifices and have never been able to climb beyond where we are. The odds are completely stacked against us though. In the United States there's essentially a system of welfare for the rich and affluent and capitalism for the poor. The problem with that is capitalism is incredibly vicious and indifferent to the poor. Just look at Africa to see that.

And this is where I completely see things differently then you. I completely agree you should be allowed to do what ever you want as long as you're not interfering with anyone else's freedom but I think capitalism by its very nature calls for that. It leads to a horrific division of classes where one class is under oppression constantly. In capitalism there where always be that oppressed class too - in this system people are in economic chains. I think that when politicians and so on start talking about the beauty of the free market and the American dream they're only doing so to ensure that those chains stay unnoticed.

i've said this a thousand times, socialism is a wonderful idea and a great solution for many countries to expand upon their programs to so-call "bridge" the class stratification. but in a state like the United States, where there are fifty million lower-class citizens to support, it becomes an extremely daunting task.

we've already got multiple social programs to help and feed the impoverished but it's damn near impossible to provide nonessentials for everybody when 1 in 6 are resting primarily on the goodwill of the state.

i'd like to say that universal health care is a good idea, i'd like to think that everybody should have access to quality medical coverage but strictly speaking it's completely infeasible and will bankrupt the United States in the long run.

[Son of JayJamJah]

It's a satirical statement but I think it's basically true that America has the richest poor people in the world.

I feel like the United States has the smallest division between it's wealthy and it's poor, yes there are a small percentage of the population with a disproportionate amount of wealth, but so many are so generous. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the unimaginable fortunes they've amassed in America have allowed them to make the lives of millions of people better. Socialist nations do not have the doctors, scientists, engineers and inventors that America has, because here you can be the best or at least compete with the best at anything.

Locally there is a gentleman in our town who has built a recreation center for senior citizens and youth as well as a hall for parties and weddings and it is essentially free for people who live in the community. Kids can use computers get tutoring or just hang out and play games or watch Tv with friends in a safe, comfortable environment. Senior citizens can get car service to go to appointments or run errands. The list goes on, this is a realization of the American Dream that makes so many people's lives better.

I can't speak to you or anyone else's position, but I can sympathize. I've been struggling, I've been poor, but it was in a different time before the extra amenities like cell phones, cable, the internet were all part of the average person's budget. I can relate to feeling like the world was against me and I can only wish that your continuing life experience will be filled with as much good fortune as reward for hard work as mine was.

I love generosity and the spirit of community. I donate a lot of money (relative to my income) to charitable causes because I'd rather give it to them then to the government whose track record is less impressive. That's the problem with taxes, you have to pay them no matter what and that means the government is not accountable.

Personal and societal accountability are the cornerstones of my belief because in my professional and personal experience if you do or don't hold someone accountable you will or will not get the desired results.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

i've said this a thousand times, socialism is a wonderful idea and a great solution for many countries to expand upon their programs to so-call "bridge" the class stratification. but in a state like the United States, where there are fifty million lower-class citizens to support, it becomes an extremely daunting task.

we've already got multiple social programs to help and feed the impoverished but it's damn near impossible to provide nonessentials for everybody when 1 in 6 are resting primarily on the goodwill of the state.

i'd like to say that universal health care is a good idea, i'd like to think that everybody should have access to quality medical coverage but strictly speaking it's completely infeasible and will bankrupt the United States in the long run.

The thing is though, in the United States, there's a huge divisions between the rich and poor. That inequity is insane. As I said before, something like the top 10% (I think it's less, more like 5% I've even heard 2%) control 90% of the wealth. That's just insane and it causes a lot of these problems we have with funding programs which work to benefit the underprivileged. This is ignoring all the stupid things the United States does...like have two wars at once AND cut taxes at the same time and the general fiscal irresponsibility of their government.

[Son of JayJamJah]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

The thing is though, in the United States, there's a huge divisions between the rich and poor. That inequity is insane. As I said before, something like the top 10% (I think it's less, more like 5% I've even heard 2%) control 90% of the wealth.

So is sort of an invisible division however and they also pay something like 98% of the taxes (charitable donations included) collectively so they're not all bad.