So Fildel Castro calls it quits.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

In his book Free to Choose he goes more in depth about his theory about what cased the great depression and it all makes sense. I can give you the gist of it if you want.

Does this man think that a nation can survive with a large impoverished and malcontent populace?

Of course not. He just thinks capitalism is the best way to avoid that.

Capitalism, by itself, in no way, shape or form assures that people can live happy and dignified lives.

Your right it doesn't, but capitalism is about equality of opportunity. If people want to, they can live happy and dignified lives. Socialism is about equality of outcome, which is completely arbitrary, it depends on who's in power.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Curchill

they [socialist programs] create another segment of discontentment in people who see it as immoral to give anyone anything they didn't earn

It's not about giving them something they didn't earn, it's about who's money your giving away. Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

[Kuya]

Name a society that hasn't had a large impoverished and malcontent (segment of the) populace. You might be able to make an argument for ancient Greek city-states, if you don't count the huge numbers of slaves. Presumably, Milton feels that poverty and misery and the resulting discontentment is an inevitable result of civilization, and that laws and law enforcement can contain that segment to the satisfaction of the productive majority. Also, he probably doesn't consider the effects of addiction and mental disorders. What's more, socialist programs only keep people content when they actually work, and as you can see from this thread, they create another segment of discontentment in people who see it as immoral to give anyone anything they didn't earn (not to put words in Swampy's mouth or anything).

I say screw it all, just do whatever you want until we hit Ghost in the Shell technology level, then I'll just live forever in my own cyberbrain.

Possibly inevitable, but certainly no reason to agrivate the situation to an extent that could possibly lead to social unrest. Also your comparing near the end that basicaly comes up to: "Who would be unhappiest?" Is an obvious answer. Anyone who had read a bit into European history knows full well what enough social discontent can lead to and it was just cause for governments to start paying more attention and respect towards its citizenry.

[Kuya]

Your right it doesn't, but capitalism is about equality of opportunity. If people want to, they can live happy and dignified lives. Socialism is about equality of outcome, which is completely arbitrary, it depends on who's in power.

Terrible. This form of thought assumes everyone has the same advantages and disadvantages in a capitalist system, which is, once again, terribly naive. In capitalism, or possibly in every imaginable system that man can concut, there will be those who possess an advantage which inmediatly places them above others and gives them the ability to make sure others can never achieve the same status. It seems the theorists ignored just how selfish a human can be. But the point is not to assume it should go without criticism and to attempt at forming a more efficient system out of its ashes.

I presume you don't believe that poor people are poor because they chose to be, right?

[Charla]

What if I'm reaching into both of our pockets to help out all three of us (you, me and the bum)? Remember, you and me are happier if we don't have to get shot at when we drive through Oakland. But then again, I'm not allowed to make that judgement. Only you can decide whether or not you'd be better off not paying 20 bucks to not get shot at.

You know what? Forget it. I can think up as many snappy comebacks as I want, but neither of us is going to change the other's mind, and nobody's thought of a cheap, effective and reliable way to end an intractable social problem yet. Until then, we can all just keep hoping we don't get shot much, and be grateful we weren't born dirt poor crack babies. Or even worse, in Africa.

@Kuya: the last sentance of my first paragraph (What's more... didn't earn) wasn't comparing the discontent, it was addressing the difficulty of getting that segment on board with the program in the first place. And then having to listen to them complain about it afterwards.

[guartz]

This is precisely why I'm gonna sound like a broken record and keep insisting that such arguments need to be made first through a MORAL perspective.

Is forcing people to pay taxes morally acceptable? Yes or no? Or in what situation?

Or going into socialism, how long do you think a society will stay egalitarian? Will you use force to keep it egalitarian since some people might refuse to give up some of their shares?

Moral Arguments man. It's the future.

[aurik]

Roads are so awesome.

[Khamsin]

I presume you don't believe that poor people are poor because they chose to be, right?

This doesn't apply to all poor people, since some poor people are fucked no matter which way you look at it because they get screwed over and can't get out of the hole they're in no matter how determined they are. But there are many poor people who, while not purposefully choosing to be poor, could be much better off if they had made better choices in life. Or could be better off right now if they start doing something with themselves.

Is forcing people to pay taxes morally acceptable? Yes or no? Or in what situation?

Yes, because I'm basically paying for a service. Our rights and freedoms aren't based in some ancient deep magic like in Narnia. I'm protected by the government and am therefore able to live in comfort with many state-provided conveniences, public utilities and services. And of those provided by private corporations, such as television, electricity, and internet, I'm only able to enjoy those because the government protects those corporations.

If this were some free-for-all society without government, I'd be way stressed out and living in harsh conditions with the worry that I might come home one day to find someone else has taken my shelter. Not to mention that no large organized corporations could exist in such conditions, so you could say goodbye to things like cellular phone service, cable television, and electricity. The only kind of business that could cut it would be a small shop run by a guy with a big gun and a mean dog.

Will you use force to keep it egalitarian since some people might refuse to give up some of their shares?

Force is used in any government setup. We use force everyday to ensure people stay within the law, whether it be apprehending bank robbers or tax evaders.

It's necessary. Without it, there may as well be no government at all.

[namfoodle]

Roads are so awesome.

You can drive on them and stuff.

[Stumblingdrunk]

capitalism is about equality of opportunity.

how?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Your right it doesn't, but capitalism is about equality of opportunity. If people want to, they can live happy and dignified lives. Socialism is about equality of outcome, which is completely arbitrary, it depends on who's in power.

Terrible. This form of thought assumes everyone has the same advantages and disadvantages in a capitalist system, which is, once again, terribly naive. In capitalism, or possibly in every imaginable system that man can concut, there will be those who possess an advantage which inmediatly places them above others and gives them the ability to make sure others can never achieve the same status. It seems the theorists ignored just how selfish a human can be. But the point is not to assume it should go without criticism and to attempt at forming a more efficient system out of its ashes.

I presume you don't believe that poor people are poor because they chose to be, right?

I don't assume everyone has the same advantages and disadvantages. I was merely trying to say that capitalism gives people the choice of how they want to live happy and dignified lives, or how they want to achieve that status for themselves.

And of course I don't believe that last sentence.

What if I'm reaching into both of our pockets to help out all three of us (you, me and the bum)? Remember, you and me are happier if we don't have to get shot at when we drive through Oakland. But then again, I'm not allowed to make that judgement. Only you can decide whether or not you'd be better off not paying 20 bucks to not get shot at.

Not sure what you meant here, sorry.

[namfoodle]

I don't assume everyone has the same advantages and disadvantages. I was merely trying to say that capitalism gives people the choice of how they want to live happy and dignified lives, or how they want to achieve that status for themselves.

Here you go Swampdonkey, you'll never have to type a reply again:
Poor people are lazy.
Poor people should be taxed more (especially drug dealers; because 90% of all poor people are drug dealers).
Poor people want to be poor because they like it.
Poor people could be not poor if they wanted to be.
100% of the people own 100% of the possible wealth in the world; therefore, I could be better than you.
Roads are useful sometimes.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I don't assume everyone has the same advantages and disadvantages. I was merely trying to say that capitalism gives people the choice of how they want to live happy and dignified lives, or how they want to achieve that status for themselves.

Here you go Swampdonkey, you'll never have to type a reply again:
Poor people are lazy.
Poor people should be taxed more (especially drug dealers; because 90% of all poor people are drug dealers).
Poor people want to be poor because they like it.
Poor people could be not poor if they wanted to be.
100% of the people own 100% of the possible wealth in the world; therefore, I could be better than you.
Roads are useful sometimes.

Amen!

[Charla]

What if I'm reaching into both of our pockets to help out all three of us (you, me and the bum)? Remember, you and me are happier if we don't have to get shot at when we drive through Oakland. But then again, I'm not allowed to make that judgement. Only you can decide whether or not you'd be better off not paying 20 bucks to not get shot at.

Not sure what you meant here, sorry.

I was responding to your defensible assertion that mandatory charity is wrong by calling into question whether it still constitutes generosity if it benefits you as well.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I see. Are you referring to paying for police to protect us in that example?

[Beckwin]

and that those in poverty are more likely to commit theft.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Providing a police department isn't "socialism" nor is building roads, why would I be against that?

[Beckwin]

Providing a police department isn't "socialism" nor is building roads, why would I be against that?

you have to tax to fund them, and because they aren't privately paid for and run, they are on the path of socialism.

[Vistani]

Providing a police department isn't "socialism" nor is building roads, why would I be against that?

Actually, they are. All government is by its very nature socialistic, which was explained to you in this thread like three months ago, and you eventually backed down because all you're actually able to do is to quote the arguments of others, and call those who oppose you GUTLESS.

You've proven yourself even more of a bigoted idiot in this thread with your hatred of democracy. I really don't understand where you're coming from; do you consider communism the polar opposite of democracy? Do you think democracy is synonymous with capitalism? What you seem to want is a far-right totalitarianism.

Maybe you should stop paraphrasing shit you don't understand whatsoever, i.e. exactly what happened in the thread where you argued for fairtax, a system you clearly don't actually understand the implications of. You should also attempt not to walk back into the corner you found yourself in a few threads back, and seem to find yourself in at the end of every thread, where you simply have no idea what you're arguing about because you don't have any real understanding of the topic. See you in three months when you forget about this thread and feel like ragging on the GUTLESS communists again.

[Charla]

I was actually thinking more along the lines of welfare, homeless shelters, subsidized adult education, rehab, etc. Things that are often called socialist, but have the potential to reduce poverty (and addiction, but that's even more complicated) and therefore violent crime. Even though you're technically right in saying that using tax revenue for social programs constitutes "spending other peoples' money", it's being spent for the benefit of all taxpayers, if in a very indirect way. As I said, I don't expect to change your mind here, but just realize that none of these issues are as onesided as they can be made to seem.

[Delta_9]

So after you all get through ragging on swampd (kinda rightfully so), lets clarify something. People don't have a problem with paying taxes for things like firefighters, police, and the like. They are doing a service or a job for the money they earn. The problem with socialism for a lot of people is the fact that you are forcibly taking someone's money to give it to someone that isn't doing a service. I'm all for public works programs, but giving a welfare check to someone that has done nothing for society but pop out another child? There are always exceptions to the rule of course. Those that can't work for a multitude of reasons should be one of those exceptions.

If a system could be perfected so that there were no loop holes, no kick backs for those in power; then a larger social program would be fine. We don't live in that society. I guess my point is that there has to be a tipping point when too much is being wasted on programs that are doing very little for the society.

I know I'm going to get flamed for voicing my opinion but meh.