CDZ redistribution of wealth

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by there4eyeM, Feb 7, 2015.

  1. DonaldFG
    Offline

    DonaldFG VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    268
    Thanks Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +111
    What you are describing is communism. Socialism does not require giving up private property. Basically, socialism is a form of government that functions to the benefit of its people - just what government was intended to do.

    Social Security and Medicare are social programs that cover all citizens within their defined definitions - those over 65 years old.

    Most developed (first world) countries have social programs.
     
  2. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    ??? Communes are neither new, ineffective systems of social organization, nor doomed to failure. Take a look at any number of organizations.
    The Branch Davidians didn't do so well, but that they didn't is hardly an indication of the viability of communal living and social organization. When a bunch of crazy and/or stupid people elect to adopt a communal lifestyle/organization, sure, things aren't likely to go so well for them. But that is because they are idiots, not because communal systems of organization cannot work.

    Scale, based on what I've observed, is the limiting factor to communal systems' efficacy. Even though some of the orders noted above have existed for over a thousands of years, they all have at least one key thing in common: notwithstanding their having central and global leadership, the central leaders of the orders leave the details of daily life -- what to produce, how much to produce, etc. -- up to the leaders of each local commune (abbey, cloister, etc.).
     
  3. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,618
    Thanks Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,614
    Really.....

    The money that I earn in my pay check, is my property. The government confiscates it and gives it to people who have not earned it. If I refuse to pay, men with guns show up, and drag me off to jail.

    Socialism most certainly does require the giving up of property rights. If you doubt that theory, just test it. Refuse to pay medicare taxes. See what happens.
     
  4. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,994
    Thanks Received:
    9,524
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,561
    When a one party takes money from another party and gives it to a third party.......that is called stealing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Staidhup
    Offline

    Staidhup Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,057
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    PNW
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    There is nothing wrong in teaching a person to fish, giving them one fish after another fuels the cycle of poverty, promotes dependency, and destroys the will to succeed. Socialism in its pure form does not exist, never will, because cronyism and greed fueled accent of those in power. Idealism is wonderful, beautiful, and worthy, however it is plagued by one problem, reality and human nature. The will of the human spirit to excel is numbed and beaten down by the actions of governments.
     
  6. Staidhup
    Offline

    Staidhup Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,057
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    PNW
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    whoops that should read the ascent:)
     
  7. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,618
    Thanks Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,614
    I don't see any of those as being products of socialist ideals. They most certainly are not "equality" based systems.

    Moreover, none of these, as far as I can tell, are self-sustaining. It's only because people outside the communes work and earn money in the capitalist system, that they then donate to the communes, that keep them running.

    Moreover, the Cistercians and such conducted themselves more like a company than a commune. The had strict property rights, and engaged in productions of goods, and their abbeys were placed close to towns and cities, and often on major highways of trade.

    How is this any different than McDonald picking a good spot for a new store?

    So while I do sort of see the connection, I don't see them as the same as Jones Town, or Brooks Farm, Drop City, and other supposed socialist equality based systems.
     
  8. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    Your ability to identify one aspect of socialism that offends you and then mark it as the "root of all evil," so to speak, does not obviate the fact that the system in which you have for the entirety of your life, if you were born and raised in the U.S., incorporates multiple socialist ideas. Additionally, your remarks, while demagoguing over what you see as socialism's shortcomings, fail to identify any means for mitigating the ills of capitalism. Lastly, that one will suffer a penalty for not paying one's taxes in no way supports the assertion that "socialism most certainly does require the giving up of property rights." Were there to exist a place having laissez faire capitalism and that collected taxes exclusively to fund non-social programs, one would still be penalized for not paying one's taxes. How tax money is spent has nothing to do with whether there is a penalty imposed for not paying them.

    I think you have misconstrued the intent of a great many social programs. The task is not to construct a vibrant economic order, but to cultivate economic development by aiding the establishment of the institutional conditions that enable economic actors to pursue their plans freely, to place their bets on economic ideas, and find the financing to bring those bets to life in the marketplace.


    Question:
    Assuming you are not a one-percenter, just how well do you imagine you'd do in a capitalist system that doesn't incorporate some tenets of socialism?
     
  9. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    Once again, you've let your awareness of one aspect of the situation lead you to construe it as the sole and/or primary driver to the nature and scope applying to that situation.
    • Though today, donations may be among the primary sources of income for convents and abbys, in at least one era of largely unregulated capitalism, the Renaissance, they were not, even when donations were nonetheless significant.
    • Your remark above goes to the point of self-sustainability and the generation of resources, not whether a redistribution or evenly apportioned distribution of resources generated can result in a successful mode of organization for a given society. Once again, you have confounded your thinking on one matter with your conclusions on another, that though related, are yet different matters.
     
  10. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,618
    Thanks Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,614
    None of what you said seems to even address the point I made. When you take someone's property, without their consent.... that's a denial of property rights. So yes, the fact people with guns come and take my property by force.... does in itself prove that socialism negates property rights.

    Nothing you said even dented that reality.

    Moving on....

    Yes there are socialist policies in place in the US. No, that fact doesn't mean it do not infringe on my property rights, when I am forced to fund them.

    Nearly 2/3rds of the taxes I pay, go to fund socialist programs. I have until this year, never benefited from a single socialist program. Not once.

    Therefore, when you ask how I would be doing without those socialist systems, I can confidently say, I'd be far better off, with more savings and more wealth, if I had not been forced to pay for socialists things I don't believe in.

    Neither of your links are even relevant. Not sure why you post links to stuff that doesn't support your points.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

sharon tirabassi