|
| |
LOki
Refusenik   SSHOLE |
Posts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/14/2005 at 21:15 |
Part One
"What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats."
"According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution."
TESTIFY!
Part Two
"Nowhere in our Constitution is there even a hint of authority for most of what Congress taxes and spends for today. "
"Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The "detail of powers" or those "specifically enumerated" refer to what's actually laid out in the Constitution.
w00t! HOLLA!
[Edited on 15/4/2005 by LOki]
[Edited on 23/4/2005 by LOki]
____________________
|
| |
ghostrider
liberal exit  SSHOLEPosts: 2525 Registered: 7/29/2004 Offline
|
4/14/2005 at 21:20 |
when i was a full-blown hippy i hearted socialism. as a property owner i want to say 'piss off' to property taxes, welfare and subsidized housing....i got mine, now get off your ass and get yours.
____________________
MstrLance ~
I think you accidentally drew a hexapus.
Dent ~I did, didn't I. |
| |
BeachGoat
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 431 Registered: 10/31/2003 Offline
|
4/14/2005 at 22:20 |
After barfing up thousands of dollars for taxes on my birthday instead of partying, I heartily agree.
I am well below the poverty line in income, yet have to PAY taxes instead of a refund. What the fuck? My withholding is at ZERO/SINGLE and I'm married. I have the highest possible withholding at poverty income, and I OWE. At less than $200 a week take home, how is this possible?
WAR! My money goes to kill children. Not by my choice. By the will of the rich.
President Hitler MUST wear a hat! I hate the Republicans.
[Edited on 15/4/2005 by BeachGoat]
____________________
|
| |
HOBO
* b0bo has quit IRC ('Exit')  SSHOLEPosts: 1148 Registered: 3/19/2002 Offline
|
4/14/2005 at 23:54 |
classless society? no thanks. I like being a snooty middle class white guy with a distain for everyone who I deem less than an equal. Also, I really, really want to have more private ownership of stuff. I'm not sure what kind of stuff I want, But I know I just want more stuff.
____________________
" I have never understood the female capacity to avoid a direct answer to any question." ~Spock~
|
| |
MadTurk
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 167 Registered: 3/11/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 01:21 |
I KNEW IT! As soon as I opened the page and saw "Socialism is Evil" on the top of it, I knew Loki, God of Mischief, would be on one of his holier-than-thou, all-you-people-who-just-want-to-have-a -little-more-equality-and-love-and-peace-in-the-world-are-fricking-idjits kind of rants.
You know what is really evil? The willful ignorance of people to acknowledge that they receive PUBLIC GOODS for their willingness to give up THE SMALLEST PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME OF VIRTUALLY ALL INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS to taxes. Like driving your big ass SUV on those comfy smooth roads? Guess how they're paid for to be maintained? (NYS Thruway excluded - fux0rs). Like having grocery store shelves stocked full of farm fresh food? Guess who pays for the subsidies to go to farmers who produce these tasty morsels? Like having relatively educated populace that won't immediately succumb to political or media pressure? (Yes we're losing ground on this front, but the war ain't over yet.)
Give me a fucking break, people. Pony up your fair share and stop the bitching.
Now, I won't argue that my tax dollars are being spent as well as they possibly could. I think that military spending is ridiculously high and that corporations are treated like babies. But arguing over dispensation is a far cry from whining about how "the man" is "keeping me down" because I can't get that shiny new electrical appliance that looks like a cross between a vacuum and a toaster that has marital aids stuck all over it (while people of equal caliber and drive as I sit in the inner city caught up in the swirling cesspool of social injustice that our capitalist system breeds because the corp's are moving all their factories to China, the moving costs for which are generously paid for by you-know-who).
Chrissake, just pay your fucking taxes and shut up. I did.
Oh, and by the way, did you hear the Pope died?
____________________
Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras. |
| |
MadTurk
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 167 Registered: 3/11/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 01:59 |
America is 28th out of the 30 top nations in tax burden (only South Korea and Mexico are below us). Yet, 79% of Americans believe we are in the top 15 and 18% believe we pay the highest taxes - that's nearly 1 out of 5 Americans who are DEAD WRONG! Perhaps we should spend a little more of that $400 billion going to "defense" on edumacation? (Disclaimer: this college professor, who is in the bottom 20th percentile of income earners, wouldn't mind a raise.)
Curiously, note how FRANCE has the LOWEST income and profit taxes.
Another source: MSN article
____________________
Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras. |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 02:04 |
Socialism == Bad
Communism == Worse
Taxes == Evil
What's so hard about this? The fed. government was never supposed to have the powers of taxation that is does today. The constitution's initial limits on that were intended to limit the size and power of the federal government, leaving more power to the states themselves.
We just went off and screwed it all up... |
| |
BeachGoat
DARTH MENSES Posts: 431 Registered: 10/31/2003 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 02:07 |
"Chrissake, just pay your fucking taxes and shut up. I did."
After paying in a full 17% of my check into deductions, I still owed $1100 for additional taxes today for taxes, and I bring home less than $200 a week.
I can bitch as long and as loud as I want. Bush is spending my food money on death.
(this doesn't include the 3 grand property tax or the state tax or the sales tax or the utility tax or the fuel tax or the phone tax or the postal tax or the cable tax or the liquor tax) Or park fees. Bitch!
[Edited on 15/4/2005 by BeachGoat]
____________________
|
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 02:39 |
Most of your ideas of private property, land, house ownership, etc, don't date back past the enclosure movement of 17th century England, when people first started saying, hey, I have more power than everybody else, therefore I can call this thing that everybody is using 'property' and own it. And it's my right as an owner to own it goddammit.
Before that, of course, nobody owned everything because it doesn't make sense to talk about serfs owning anything, and nobody would question if the baron owned anything. Does a baron own his fiefdom? He's a baron, by definition he has a feifdom. It's land, it's there. If you don't use it it won't get used. It wasn't something you can own.
And a caveat: I'm talking about the American definitions of ownership as defined by American and British capitalist theory. If you want to talk about other cultures that had ownership concepts, go talk to people in those cultures about them.
Once you get past some of the ideas that seem so natural about capitalism, like ownership, markets, working for money, etc, socialism doesn't seem so bad. It's only when you try to force socialist ideas into a capitalist framework that you get in trouble and start calling things theft or infringement of rights.
Here's a horror story. After the fall of the soviet union, american teachers and economists went to Russia to develop the market and found the small businessmen had no concept of profit.
|
| |
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 244 Registered: 3/17/2005 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 02:58 |
Either you pay in social services such as public education, social services [healthcare, preventative meds, etc] or you pay in Oppressive gubment, PRISONS, and Insurance!
Insular selfishness cannot lead to anything bigger than the greedy person. While I do admit, that those evil socialists can afford art, culture, morality, and eco-fucking-goodness; I would rather pollute, own and take away things from others.
What does that all mean really?
Societies by definition involve the interaction between people. Americans act like fat babies who's shit doesn't stink--they are afraid of being bad competitors, they are afraid of seeming weak, phobias abound. They haven't always been fat babies--once they were proud of being honest and fair.
Many, many years ago [in American time] there was an event called world war II. As a result of the Americans having to pull people's asses out of slings and knocking out the gimp; they realized that certain things need to be established. Justice, international rules, fair play. This was against the principles of the greedy though.
The greedy have always controlled the monetary supply, the banks and Politicians--the greedy only look out for themselves, and if you ain't one of them then you are prey. Anyhow, the greedy had fucked up big time [depression] before the big war, so they knew to lay low and infiltrate the entire economic process. They began buy owning the Federal Reserve [a private company] and allowing the congress [gubment] to have access to MadCa$h™ whenever their crack-whore natures needed something [say a missile defense shield, war, uuber bomber]...
So while some of you may decry socialisim, marxism, fru-fruism in competition with the Great Capitalism, I hate to break it to you, but they are all social myths.
There is no free market--it has been bought and sold to the mega-buxx0rz coporations who get handouts. WALMART DOES NOT PAY TAXES YOU BITCHES~!
They don't need to tax you! They have something called inflation--which is the cost of burning money! 3% right? Each year your money is worth 3% LESS than before--where did that value go?
Into the sky, into a cruise missle, into the ass of some sailor on the Arab coast! It went into corporate welfare, handouts, tom delay's daughter's panties...
give me socialism where people bitch and moan and have 30 hour work weeks and can retire--because they can't lie about the failure it is. Just don't give me this shit crap we have and call it "capitalism".
____________________
If you include a null character |
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard  SSHOLEPosts: 1690 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 03:08 |
1) interesting idea running a government, having roads, a defense force, unemployment, student loans, etc. without taxes. it boggles my mind that so few people realize they benefit from taxes. also, what turk said.
2) The fed. government was never supposed to have the powers of taxation that is does today. The constitution's initial limits on that were intended to limit the size and power of the federal government, leaving more power to the states themselves.
then i could watch all you cunts complain about 'unreasonable state(/local/sales) taxes'. give me a fucking break, nigga.
3) what dinozoa said. the notion of ownership is artificial, as is just about everything 'modern society' encompasses. AIM 4 LIEF!!
4) There is no free market--it has been bought and sold to the mega-buxx0rz coporations who get handouts. WALMART DOES NOT PAY TAXES YOU BITCHES~!
word. it's an auction, not an election.
[Edited on 15/4/2005 by mundhra] |
| |
dragonstaff
Too old to Rock and Roll...too young to die  SSHOLEPosts: 787 Registered: 8/19/2004 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 07:48 |
Socialism is Evil
Wrong. Socialism is Good, Men are Evil.
Karl Marx is nothing more than a plagiarist who stole from the most famous Socialist Revolutionary of all time. This Revolutionary is known to us today as... Jesus Christ! If you read the Gospels ( discounting the religious mumbo-jumbo) and concentrate on the social side of what JC did and said, his real message, that we all can use, is socialism. A perfect socialism, of the sort envisioned for the failed Australian colony of Utopia, that was established somewhere in South America in the mid-to-late 19th century.
The problem with both Marxist socialism ( Maoist, Leninist et al) and the brand preached by JC is not the theory, but the practice. Men are Greedy, and will always try to look out for number 1. This, of course, goes against the ideals of any sort of Socialism, and is the reasonwhy ALL socialist governments revert to dictatorships and oppression.
If the Christians amongst us actually lived as they claim to believe, and truely followed the teachings of the Man they claim to follow, the world would be a much better place, and would have been a Socialist society for most of the last 2000 years.
On the tax thing, I pay nearly 25% income tax, 10% GST on most things I buy, 50% or more 'excise' ( tax ) on petrol,tobacco, alcohol, etc., along with property taxes of about A$1500/year and 'stamp duty' ( tax) on all insurance policies and registered contracts. The insurance also gets the GST on top, so I end up paying a tax on a tax. I earn about A$ 36,000 a year ( about US$ 27,000 ) and this is well BELOW the average income. The 'excise' on fuel is not a set amount,
But is calculated on the sale price per litre! This means that as the price rises, the tax rises to go with it. At the moment, petrol is around A$1.10/litre (US$3.71/gallon ) and diesel ( for the bosses car ) is ten cents more. These prices DO include the 'excise'. A 40-pack of cigarettes is around A$15/pack (US$11.25), so the living is not cheap. And only getting worse.
Viva La Revolution!, and get 'em up against the wall!
____________________
The Grumpiest Alpha
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 09:47 |
I dispute that people are inherently greedy or evil. I think the reason people say this is because for any population of people, no matter how small (well, greater than maybe 20 or so), you can always find somebody who's trying to get on top. But being on top doesn't necessarily imply greed. In a truly socialist society, where there is no property and no profit, etc, being on top doesn't mean you've accumulated any special amount of material wealth, it just means you get to tell everybody what to do, if you want. It also means there is a class system that allows somebody to rise to the top, but I don't think there will ever be a human society without classes.
I think most sane people who are called evil are really just being greedy or passionate about a cause, ie Osama Bin Laden is evil because he is passionate about destroying the US's corporate imperialism. It's really subjective about which causes are evil and which are good. So if we get rid of the greed, then I don't see why somebody should be labeled as evil.
The idea that people are greedy is a postulate of the free market theory of capitalism. Again, it's not something that's true, it's an idea that somebody (Adam Smith) came up with a few hundred years ago and now everybody believes it because we need it to be true for capitalism to work. Without greed, profit is theft and there is no reason for a market to function. Prices would be arbitrary, people would work for nothing, if they could/felt like it, etc.
Profit is theft. |
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1690 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 13:49 |
dinozoa: But being on top doesn't necessarily imply greed. In a truly socialist society, where there is no property and no profit, etc, being on top doesn't mean you've accumulated any special amount of material wealth, it just means you get to tell everybody what to do, if you want. i don't know, man. greed is more of a hoarding mentality. i think it's a bit myopic to only apply it to wealth.
greed: excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness : AVARICE
acquisitiveness: strongly desirous of acquiring and possessing
synonym see COVETOUS
although, avarice is defined as "excessive or insatiable desire for wealth or gain".
what i'm saying is this, though. if my wallet's just as empty as yours but i savor the thought of telling you what to do, i desire gaining power over you. that's greed. the same thought applies to cars, computers, clothes, watches, and food.
on that note, i've never seen wild animals share food. inherent greed is good for survival, not so much for society.
i think "evil" is a close-minded cop out. people can be horrible and do horrible acts, but what exactly is 'evil'? the axis of evil, slayer, homosexuals, corporations, hitler?
cthulhu? |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 14:13 |
ghostrideryyz says:"when i was a full-blown hippy i hearted socialism. as a property owner i want to say 'piss off' to property taxes, welfare and subsidized housing....i got mine, now get off your ass and get yours." STATION!
BeachGoat says:"WAR!" UH! GOOD GAWD, Y'ALL!
You make me laff0rZ. (say it again!)
MadTurk says:"You know what is really evil? The willful ignorance of people to acknowledge that they receive PUBLIC GOODS for their willingness to give up THE SMALLEST PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME..." Please check these premises: "public goods", "willingness."
The articles are not against taxes generally, but rather a particular type of coercive redistributive flavor of taxation.
MadTurk says:"Like driving your big ass SUV on those comfy smooth roads? Guess how they're paid for to be maintained?" Why must funding for roads be coercive?
MadTurk says:"Guess who pays for the subsidies to go to farmers who produce these tasty morsels?" Upon what rational should agri-industry be subsidized that other industries (that liberals, for instance, do not like) cannot then rightly claim?
MadTurk says:"Like having relatively educated populace that won't immediately succumb to political or media pressure?" Why should the government indictrination program hold a coercive monopoly on primary education, and why should we be coerced into supporting this government mandated indoctrination?
MadTurk says:"Give me a fucking break, people. Pony up your fair share and stop the bitching." What is so imminently fair about Bobby paying 12.5% of his wages to income tax, and Robbie paying 28% of his wages to income tax?
MadTurk says:"Now, I won't argue that my tax dollars are being spent as well as they possibly could. I think that military spending is ridiculously high and that corporations are treated like babies." You may be correct about military spending, but I argue this: the Military, and the consequent spending for it, are consitutionally mandated; "babying" ANYBODY is not. So let us first get rid of all the babying, and then determine wether or not we can afford our military budget.
MadTurk says:"America is 28th out of the 30 top nations in tax burden (only South Korea and Mexico are below us). " HAHAHA! We are also 28 out of the top 191 nations in tax burden! How about THAT?
Dinoza says:"Before that, of course, nobody owned everything because it doesn't make sense to talk about serfs owning anything, and nobody would question if the baron owned anything. Does a baron own his fiefdom? He's a baron, by definition he has a feifdom. It's land, it's there. If you don't use it it won't get used. It wasn't something you can own." The Baron was the care taker of the property, or land and everything on it, if you will,--owned by the king.
Dinoza says:"Once you get past some of the ideas that seem so natural about capitalism, like ownership, markets, working for money, etc, socialism doesn't seem so bad. It's only when you try to force socialist ideas into a capitalist framework that you get in trouble and start calling things theft or infringement of rights." This is like saying "if you open your mind and accept that stealing is ice-cream, then socialism is all about ice-cream and not about stealing."
I think you're full of shit. So explain yourself.
MBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil says:"Insular selfishness cannot lead to anything bigger than the greedy person." STATION!
MBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil says:"Anyhow, the greedy had fucked up big time [depression] before the big war, so they knew to lay low and infiltrate the entire economic process." Rather than "economic," you mean political process.
MBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil says:"They began buy owning the Federal Reserve [a private company] and allowing the congress [gubment] to have access to MadCa$h™ whenever their crack-whore natures needed something [say a missile defense shield, war, uuber bomber]..." See? I'd also say that rather than "the greedy", you mean the greedy and incompetent, because the cometent and greedy don't need any government assistance to make MadCa$h™.
mundhra says:"it boggles my mind that so few people realize they benefit from taxes." It boggles my mind that so many people simply accept that they are not allowed to recieve these "benefits" that they pay so fuking much for.
dragonstaff says:"Wrong. Socialism is Good, Men are Evil." Wrong. Socialism is the evil perpetrated by evil men.
Dinoza says:"It's really subjective about which causes are evil and which are good." Only if you assert that all virtue and morality is patently subjective.
Dinoza says:"The idea that people are greedy is a postulate of the free market theory of capitalism. Again, it's not something that's true, it's an idea that somebody (Adam Smith) came up with a few hundred years ago and now everybody believes it because we need it to be true for capitalism to work." No. The idea that people are self interested is the postulate of the free market theory of capitalism, and that the stength of their rational faculty, rather than violence, is the determining factor of sucess.
Dinoza says:"Without greed, profit is theft and there is no reason for a market to function." No. Without the free and voluntary exchange of value, profit is theft and there is no reason for a market to function.
Dinoza says:"Profit is theft." No. Profit is life.
mundhra says:"what i'm saying is this, though. if my wallet's just as empty as yours but i savor the thought of telling you what to do, i desire gaining power over you. that's greed. the same thought applies to cars, computers, clothes, watches, and food." Right. "Greed" is really not bad until violence is used to satisfy it. Which is what socialism ultimately does.
[Edited on 15/4/2005 by LOki]
____________________
|
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1690 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 15:29 |
Why must funding for roads be coercive?
how would you propose a way of road funding that isn't coercive? especially one that doesn't result in me having to listen to all you cunts complain about having to pay tolls on every goddamn road you take.
Right. "Greed" is really not bad until violence is used to satisfy it. Which is what socialism ultimately does.
one could posit that capitalism fosters the same result or, even worse, provides better tools (and an inherent structure ripe) for those who go about victimizing. especially when considering the definition of 'violence' used in that flash thing you posted a while back. why should i accept your argument? |
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth  SSHOLEPosts: 4618 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 16:00 |
mundhra: Why must funding for roads be coercive?
how would you propose a way of road funding that isn't coercive? especially one that doesn't result in me having to listen to all you cunts complain about having to pay tolls on every goddamn road you take.
People are going to bitch about paying money no matter what.
Paying for shit because I use it, on a as-I-use-it basis, is about the most sensible and intelligent thing I can imagine.
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 16:06 |
mundrha
"how would you propose a way of road funding that isn't coercive? especially one that doesn't result in me having to listen to all you cunts complain about having to pay tolls on every goddamn road you take." I might propose an apportioned tax based on gross vehicular weight.
Easy enough?
mundrha
"one could posit that capitalism fosters the same result or, even worse, provides better tools (and an inherent structure ripe) for those who go about victimizing. especially when considering the definition of 'violence' used in that flash thing you posted a while back." No. Not really, but it's academic because I posit free markets, which cannot exist without capitalism. In the context of free-market capitalism, your position is not defendable.
____________________
|
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1690 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 16:17 |
vasudeva: People are going to bitch about paying money no matter what.
Paying for shit because I use it, on a as-I-use-it basis, is about the most sensible and intelligent thing I can imagine. yes, and i hate them.
yes.LOki: I might propose an apportioned tax based on gross vehicular weight.
Easy enough? yis, but i was really talking about cunts.LOki: In the context of free-market capitalism, your position is not defendable. free-market? you mean in an ideal world where everyone is just? now you're just talking crazy!
[Edited on 15/4/2005 by mundhra] |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint  SSHOLEPosts: 833 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 16:45 |
What is so imminently fair about Bobby paying 12.5% of his wages to income tax, and Robbie paying 28% of his wages to income tax?
Strictly speaking from a "social contract" standpoint, we give up some natural rights as a matter of protection and mutual benefit. We need to protect ourselves and our belongings from those who want to take them. Therefore, those that have more should pay more for the protection they demand. They should pay more property taxes because they choose to have more property (seriously, you can't bitch about more property taxes if you live on more property...that's like bitching that you have to eat more food to maintain your fat ass). They should pay more taxes because they expect firefighters and police and medical personnel to drop everything if something goes wrong with their posessions (imagine a guy in the ghetto getting a prompt response from the cops when his Kia gets stolen).
However, I can agree that some taxes are wholly unjust: for example, taxes that go to local public schools. I have never gone to a public school, yet my family and I pay taxes that go towards public schooling. Obviously, taxation can't make everyone happy. What we have now is the best current manifestation of an inherently flawed system. Doesn't mean we can't bitch tho |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 16:49 |
mundhra says:
"free-market? you mean in an ideal world where everyone is just? now you're just talking crazy!" Just because everyone else needs to refuse to understand what free-market capitalism is to maintain their point doesn't mean you have to as well. Come on now, you know what I'm talking about. This dodge is unbecoming.
nocal says:
"We need to protect ourselves and our belongings from those who want to take them. Therefore, those that have more should pay more for the protection they demand. They should pay more property taxes because they choose to have more property (seriously, you can't bitch about more property taxes if you live on more property." Although this explains nicely why Bobby might pay less property tax on his trailer home than Robbie pay for his Plastic Prarie Squid factory, it does not expain at all why it is so imminently fair that Bobby pays 12.5% of his wages to income tax, and Robbie pays 28% of his wages to income tax.
What is so much more fair about taking more money from sombody because they have it than taking it from them because they are well educated? Or black, maybe? Or Episcopalian? Or Asian? Or female? Or Jewish?
"Let's just take as much money from X as we can, because, well, they're X."
Is that the fairest formula we can come up with? I think not. Vasudeva's "pay as you use it" scheme looks alot more fair to me.
[Edited on 15/4/2005 by LOki]
____________________
|
| |
HOBO
* b0bo has quit IRC ('Exit') SSHOLEPosts: 1148 Registered: 3/19/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 18:41 |
Is that the fairest formula we can come up with? I think not. Vasudeva's "pay as you use it" scheme looks alot more fair to me.
Agreeing with a simplistic generalization such as that has taken the wind out of yer sails. You now prose like a broken down journalist sitting behind a shoddy typewriter in cigarette stained office with a bottle of bourbon close by.
____________________
" I have never understood the female capacity to avoid a direct answer to any question." ~Spock~
|
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 833 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 19:12 |
Pay as you use it...
Theoretically it's super, but in reality it blows. I go to school on the east coast, I'm from the west coast. We have freeways back home. Here, there are queer turnpikes. These are awesome if you never ever go on the highway. If you ever do, it's annoying, arbitrary, confusing, and poorly executed. You might drive a few exits and have to pay 35 cents. The next booth might be further, and you pay $1.15. It's retarded.
EDIT: And you know, as my dad always said to me, "Communism is a wonderful system *on paper*. It's only when you intorduce human nature that it becomes a horrible system."
He was right. If we had no conception of property, and we all did whatever we wanted and whatever was needed, life would be fucking great. We wouldn't have to toil away doing shit we hate only to buy shit we don't need. But it can't happen because people are evil, not socialism or communism.
[Edited on 15/4/2005 by nocal] |
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1690 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 19:16 |
LOki: This dodge is unbecoming. sorry, dude. i can't be on 100% of the time. 
i understand your point that an ideal free-market capitalistic society removes the opportunity for victimization.
my point is that things are not ideal, and rarely ever are.LOki: Is that the fairest formula we can come up with? fairness has nothing to do with it.nocal: But it can't happen because people are evil no, GREEDY.
[Edited on 15/4/2005 by mundhra] |
| |
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 244 Registered: 3/17/2005 Offline
|
4/15/2005 at 23:45 |
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil: Either you pay in social services such as public education, social services [healthcare, preventative meds, etc] or you pay in Oppressive gubment, PRISONS, and Insurance!
werd brother! I think this point by me bears repeating. You pay weather you like to pay through coercion or if you like to pay when necessary.... You PAY! the Coroporations do not.
oh ahd:
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil:
So while some of you may decry socialisim, marxism, fru-fruism in competition with the Great Capitalism, I hate to break it to you, but they are all social myths.
There is no free market--it has been bought and sold to the mega-buxx0rz coporations who get handouts. WALMART DOES NOT PAY TAXES YOU BITCHES~!
The social contract is also hokum. there is no such thing as tacit consent, unless you want to count date rape as such--really, its a flawed approach. The whole libertine idealism those frenchies [JJ rousseau and mr. locke] yapped about came from facnciful depections of "ideal man" the noble savages of America.. hahahahaha...oh...hahhahahaha...
Wake up and smell the corruption inherent in the system! Sure it would be better to be a gaoler than a prisoner, but its not right.
____________________
If you include a null character |
| |
dragonstaff
Too old to Rock and Roll...too young to die SSHOLEPosts: 787 Registered: 8/19/2004 Offline
|
4/16/2005 at 02:34 |
Loki
Re-read this
"Wrong. Socialism is Good, Men are Evil.
Karl Marx is nothing more than a plagiarist who stole from the most famous Socialist Revolutionary of all time. This Revolutionary is known to us today as... Jesus Christ! If you read the Gospels ( discounting the religious mumbo-jumbo) and concentrate on the social side of what JC did and said, his real message, that we all can use, is socialism. A perfect socialism, of the sort envisioned for the failed Australian colony of Utopia, that was established somewhere in South America in the mid-to-late 19th century.
The problem with both Marxist socialism ( Maoist, Leninist et al) and the brand preached by JC is not the theory, but the practice. Men are Greedy, and will always try to look out for number 1. This, of course, goes against the ideals of any sort of Socialism, and is the reasonwhy ALL socialist governments revert to dictatorships and oppression.
If the Christians amongst us actually lived as they claim to believe, and truely followed the teachings of the Man they claim to follow, the world would be a much better place, and would have been a Socialist society for most of the last 2000 years."
Then this
" dragonstaff says:"Wrong. Socialism is Good, Men are Evil."
Wrong. Socialism is the evil perpetrated by evil men."
Are you suggesting that the ideals preached by JC are evil, and that he was himself an evil man?
A perfect socialism would mean the end of war and of hunger ( little kids in africa etc. starving to death before they have a chance to live). Of course, it would also mean the end of politics, government and ambition, which is why it will never work or exist. Without ambition, and the drive and ,yes, the greed that goes with it, man would not be the creature he is, and something bigger and badder would rule the world.
Mundhra, This is incorrect- "on that note, i've never seen wild animals share food. inherent greed is good for survival, not so much for society."
Wild animals share food all the time, in the same way that you and I do, within a 'family' unit. Watch a pride of lions, one or two make a kill, and the whole group feasts. True, they do not share outside the group, but I don't often give my food to strangers either. ( If I could afford to though, I would if they needed it, but I have to look after my own family first).
As an illustration, how many people here do , or would if they could, sponsor a child in a developing country? Roll call please.
____________________
The Grumpiest Alpha
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov |
| |
vladtweano
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 517 Registered: 3/11/2002 Offline
|
4/16/2005 at 02:54 |
dragonstaff:
Are you suggesting that the ideals preached by JC are evil, and that he was himself an evil man?
BLAH HAHAHAHA! Loki's own favorite logical fallacy tactic used against him in clumsy fashion. HAR! Hey Lokes, can you find the straw man in this picture? |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit  SSHOLEPosts: 442 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
4/16/2005 at 03:53 |
I might propose an apportioned tax based on gross vehicular weight.
How is that not being coercive? You're still demanding a tax from someone.
In theory, communism is utopia. No class systems, equalness for all, everything is everyones. Communism is not flawed, humans are. No human, in this modern day, wants to be equal as the next. We all want to be bigger and better (steriods anyone?)
If you took a completely uneducated mass that has never lived through politics and capatialism, and introduced them into communism ( pure and clean - not that corrupted crap pitched by Stalin and Mao), it'd probably work. They have no sense of being on top or being rich or poor. If people would just accept each other, communism would work.
On the subject of taxes, I support a tax rate depending on who you are. When someone like Beach pays half his measly gains a year into the system, and someone like Gates or other millionaires barely feel the weight difference in their wallet, the system is fucked up. A man worth a couple million dollars can afford to ease the burden on the less fortunent. Capitalism has two solutions: you're down and you stay down, or your up and you stay up (With exceptions like MC Hammer).
Rich bastards see no reason to support the poorer people. Hell, they worked for it, right? That makes them above the suffering of human life, right? Wrong. We have an obligation to support the less fortunent, its what makes us civilized. Take Christians for example: Jesus said, "Help the Poor". Christians responded by giving maybe $50 bucks a year. How long wouild $50 dollars last you, on just food alone? Not a year, thats for sure.
Humans shouldn't be bad and evil. We know, for the most part, that is is wrong. But a long time ago, we took our conscious out back and beat it till it was fucking retarded so that'd it shut up. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 13:35 |
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil says:
"The social contract is also hokum. there is no such thing as tacit consent, unless you want to count date rape as such--really, its a flawed approach." I would argue, that there is such a thing as "tacit consent," but I would also suggest that knowing of such a thing does not mean you can behave as if you have it.
dragonstaff says:
"Are you suggesting that the ideals preached by JC are evil, and that he was himself an evil man?" Yes. How about that? Now, you can try to make your point without an appeal to the son of the invisible white father who lives in the sky.
dragonstaff says:
"A perfect socialism would mean the end of war and of hunger ( little kids in africa etc. starving to death before they have a chance to live)." No it wouldn't. The perfect the socialism, the more likely there would be war and hunger.
dragonstaff says:
"Of course, it would also mean the end of politics, government and ambition, which is why it will never work or exist. Without ambition, and the drive and ,yes, the greed that goes with it, man would not be the creature he is, and something bigger and badder would rule the world." It would also mean the end of art, poetry, music, love, friendship, medicine, agriculture, and many other cool things that desire, and the abition to achieve desire, beget.
vladtweano says:
"BLAH HAHAHAHA! Loki's own favorite logical fallacy tactic used against him in clumsy fashion. HAR! Hey Lokes, can you find the straw man in this picture?" HAR! You and your "straw-man" complaint. It's not "straw-man" tactics to dismantle an argument from its foundational premises, nor is it "straw-man" to ignore the weakest argument of a position and prefer to address only the strongest. It is not "straw-man" restate an argument with a contrary bias for the purposes illustration or to illuminate a hypocracy. I don't engage in the "straw-man" fallacy.
With one caveat: If I use the "straw-man," I'd say I use it as a target for my opponents to attack; a bright candy-like button just for them. It's useful for gauging a number of things, but not to attack my opponent's position. It is after all, a weak attack.
Mofo says:
"How is that not being coercive? You're still demanding a tax from someone." (re: An apportioned gross vehicular weight tax to maintain roads.) No you're not. You don't have to pay any tax bases on GVW if you don't put a vehicle with GVW on the road. Totally voluntary, and as I stated, apportioned, so that it goes to road maintentance, and equitable in that the heaviest vehicles (which beat the roads the most) pay more for the maintenance of the roads.
Mofo says:
"If you took a completely uneducated mass that has never lived through politics and capatialism, and introduced them into communism ( pure and clean - not that corrupted crap pitched by Stalin and Mao), it'd probably work. They have no sense of being on top or being rich or poor. If people would just accept each other, communism would work." No. It would never work, because communism denies the fact that you own yourself. Under communism, you are a means to the ends of the collective. You are a slave to the "community."
EDIT: [Yes, Turk; Petitio Principii, I know. We can discuss it separately, OK?]
Mofo says:
"Rich bastards see no reason to support the poorer people." False. Rich "bastards" support millions of people who would otherwise be poor. Take a walk around and observe the mass of fuking idiots out there who would be starving to death under a tree right now if it weren't for some "rich bastard" who "exploits" the proletariat at the screw driver factory that he owns.
Mofo says:
"Hell, they worked for it, right?" Yeah. They did.
Mofo says:
"That makes them above the suffering of human life, right? Wrong." What's your point?
Mofo says:
"We have an obligation to support the less fortunent, its what makes us civilized." No we don't, and no it doesn't.
Being "less fortunate" is not a mortgage on the life, and life's work, of another. Recognizing that it is theft to place an obligation on someone else, by the use of force, is what makes us civilized. The farther from that we get, the less civilized we become.
[Edited on 17/4/2005 by LOki]
____________________
|
| |
dragonstaff
Too old to Rock and Roll...too young to die SSHOLEPosts: 787 Registered: 8/19/2004 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 14:00 |
Loki says :
No it wouldn't. The perfect the socialism, the more likely there would be war and hunger.
Why? The perfect theoretical socialism would ensure that everyone had what they needed ( without rich bastards throwing out whole roast chickens after eating one wing ), And what is the point of war when no-one needs anything
Loki says:
It would also mean the end of art, poetry, music, love, friendship, medicine, agriculture, and many other cool things that desire, and the abition to achieve desire, beget.
Again, why? Surely if the struggle for the almighty dollar has been effectively removed from the list of important things to do on everyone's fridge door, there will be more time for the good things in life.
Mofo says:
"If you took a completely uneducated mass that has never lived through politics and capatialism, and introduced them into communism ( pure and clean - not that corrupted crap pitched by Stalin and Mao), it'd probably work. They have no sense of being on top or being rich or poor. If people would just accept each other, communism would work."
Loki says: No. It would never work, because communism denies the fact that you own yourself. Under communism, you are a means to the ends of the collective. You are a slave to the "community."
Please do not confuse theoretical socialism with communism. They are two different things. This idea of Mofo's is correct. Isolated "wild" tribes have been found that do in fact live this way.It is not as rare as you would think in places like the Amazon Basin and the Phillipines, at least until the "civilised" world found them and corrupted them into wanting cars and colour television. The Eskimo peoples lived in this way also, with the sharing extending to a mans wife being part of the deal.
As for being a 'slave' to the community, you are a part of the community, so you are your own slave, and you 'own' every other member of your community. What is the problem?
I think what is happening here is that I am arguing for socialism as it is theorised, and you are arguing against socialism as it has been, and is being, practised. Try looking at the theory, not the practise for a while. I agree that the Russian and Chinese etc. experiments left, and leave, a lot to be desired. I still insist, however, that this is the result of evil men, not an evil system.
Best forum thread for ages, by the way. Lets have more of these.
[Edited on 17/4/2005 by dragonstaff]
[Edited on 17/4/2005 by dragonstaff]
____________________
The Grumpiest Alpha
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov |
| |
|
Doubt crosses everyones mind about everything at one point or another.
There's no sense in rushing it.
Pretend your mind is a bowl of jello.
Now take that jello out of the fridge before it gels.
What do you have?
Kool-Aid.
MAKES FUKIN' NO SENSE, BUT I FINALLY GOT TO USE MY JELLO STORY.
--government_death_robot
|
