CDZ redistribution of wealth

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

  1. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,601
    Thanks Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,607
    But it wasn't redistribution. Again, they operated more like corporations. The monks generally had a vow of poverty. Which is one of the reasons the Abbeys were so wealthy, and could buy more land and engage in more trade.

    At least that's my understanding.

    The communes that operate on redistribution, often failed.... and usually pretty quick.
     
  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
    ...And I won't ever directly address your point until you present a logically valid/expressed line of argument. I identified the fallacy in your remarks. If/when you revise the presentation of your argument so that it no longer contains fallacious elements, I'll gladly respond to it.
     
  3. 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
    Do you realize what you just wrote? Has it not occurred to you that at some level any organization that uses internal resources to generate and collect resources from outside itself necessarily, to some extent, resembles a corporation? The issue with socialism isn't how it generates resources, but with how it distributes them.

    Corporations/partnerships:
    • Use internal resources --> attract external resources to the firm --> distributes the attracted resources among corporation owners in proportion to their share of ownership (contribution to the firm's efforts)

      The distribution of resources is based on what one deserves.
    Socialist society/organization:
    • Use internal resources --> attract external resources to the society --> distributes the attracted resources among the members of the society based on ethical principles that may or may not bear a direct correlation to their contribution to society's efforts, but that absolutely have to do with one's being a member of the society

      The distribution is based on need, and perhaps to some extent deservedness.
    Think of the most basic of successful socialist organizations, the family/household. I have three kids.
    The contribution each of us in my household makes to the household's total bundle of resources can be seen as this: I -- 100% of them; they 0% of them.

    I have so far distributed far more of my resources to my daughter than to my sons, individually and collectively. They don't complain that she's received more of the resources I've attracted to our household (society). That she's received more had no impact on her productivity (be it to the household or for her own ends) or theirs, nor on any of their perceptions of what is fair or not fair about how resources get distributed among them/us. The reason she's received more is because I determined she needed more; however, now that she's married and living under her own roof, she receives none of my immediate household's resources, yet my sons still do.

    Might it come to pass that by the time all three have established their own households that one of them has received notably more resources than the others? Almost certainly.
     
  4. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,601
    Thanks Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,607
    There you go.... don't make a point, and then claim you won't make a point until someone else does.

    *THAT* is a logical fallacy.

    Taxation is a violation of property rights. A person rightfully earns the money, and it is forcibly taken from them, and given to someone else who did not earn it.

    That's theft. There's a reason the constitution did not allow for taxation of income to begin with. The writers understood, when you are trying to deny.

    Nothing you have said thus far has even hinted at a logical fallacy here. Your claim that it did, reflects far more on you, than on anything I said.
     
  5. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,601
    Thanks Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,607

    Hmmm... but you don't take what your sons have earned, because they have earned nothing.

    I got up at 3 AM, to drive a half hour into work, and not get back home until 4 PM that evening, to have the government take 20% of my check in taxes, of which practically none of it benefits me.

    How does your son and daughter who have not worked at all, getting your benefits, equate to me working my butt off so your socialist buddies can steal my income to buy votes?

    I just don't see that as being similar.
     
  6. Indofred
    Offline

    Indofred Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Only a foolish man builds his house on sand, but that's what socialists have done.
    The base of socialism is equality, but people are never equal.

    One man is lazy, another hard working, one an artist, the other reads a tabloid. One is a great pianist, another listens to Beyonce.
    One man knows how to make money and is willing to go that extra mile to earn it, whilst others insist they're worth $15 per hour but can't actually give any reason why except they think they deserve it.

    You can redistribute all you like, but one man will always use his share to open a brewery, whilst the prols hand around in his bar, usually complaining they haven't got a nice car like the landlord, and how unfair it is.

    Socialism, including the silly idea of redistribution, is a total waste of time.
    Hold your head up high, knowing you deserve what you get.

     
  7. 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
    I believe that you don't so see them. The irrationality of your remarks makes it clear to me that you don't grasp the extent to which they are and are not similar and that the extent of the similarity that makes the analogy apply to the points I've made is not compromised by the aspects of its dissimilarity. Moreover, that you've addressed the analogy rather than the point the analogy amplified further tells me that there's little point to discussing this with you.

    It's just as well....thanks all the same for being a source of minor entertainment.
     
  8. Andylusion
    Offline

    Andylusion Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    9,601
    Thanks Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,607
    That's kind of how I saw your posts too. Mutual agreed then. Good bye comedic relief. I'm sure you'll be a source of chuckles for others here.
     
  9. SingleVoyce
    Offline

    SingleVoyce Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    131
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Ratings:
    +49
    None of that addresses the question I asked. Where is your evidence that the logical outcome of a pure capitalist system is not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few people? As you noted, there is no pure capitalist system in existence so we are talking only theory here. The whole point of capitalism is to acquire capital. The most efficient capitalists in such a system will eventually accumulate all of the capital and there is no incentive for them to distribute it or to allow others to take any of theirs. Pure logic.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. DonaldFG
    Offline

    DonaldFG VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    268
    Thanks Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +111
    I don't disagree with you on that. We probably should not have a tax based on income; this may even be unconstitutional. But, we are stuck with it for now.

    However, socialism in general does not require an income tax any more than capitalism. This is why citizens should control their government, rather than elected officials given free reign.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

sharon tirabassi