|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Christianity the same as socialism
|
Stars
Shipmate
# 10804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
The answer to the `how much is too much' question must surely be something along the lines of `when you have more than is necessary to satisfy your reasonable needs'. Of course, we then get side-tracked into a discussion of what is `reasonable' here.
In terms of justice, this question is totally unnecessary. If someone creates the wealth they hold, then nobody has been hurt, if they hold wealth because others are restricted, then others have been hurt. The amount of wealth is irrelevant.
quote:
The problem is that when we ask `how much wealth is too much?' we are using the strongly capitalist concept of wealth (personal, proprietory wealth), which presupposes that an answer can be found within a capitalist system.
Why should anyone be bothered? Does a mountain of wealth make others poorer? Does it restrict the poor?
If it doesn’t badly affect the poor why argue doggedly against riches? Getting rid of rich people won’t make the poor rich
If your neighbour were to fill his shed with expensive Swiss watches, would it affect you?
Of course, there is a hidden presumption behind the power of this last question. Because the two agents, in the scenario, are neighbours, it is kind of presupposed that they both posses fully their right to even be in the scenario; that one agent in the scenario is not able to stop the other agent even appearing. Ok, so a shed full of watches is neither here nor there. What if, however, rather than watches, he owned the county in which the scenario where situated? Would this affect your liberties? I am using extremis, to try to communicate a qualitative difference between holding something like money or shoes and holding items such as land which represents an intrinsic restriction placed upon other people. You might argue that possessing shoes places a similar restriction upon others, in that they cannot use the shoes you hold. But this restriction is illusory, because if the owner is removed then nobody pays for those shoes to be created in the first place and the shoes no longer exist. In simple terms, nobody is being restricted by you holding something that would NOT be there without your efforts. In the same way, nobody is hurt if you come to a party with a bottle of wine that you selfishly drink yourself, or a crate of wine, or even a tanker. If you take possession of the garden, and charge other party goers for access, then that is another matter because everyone finds they are restricted by you. If the possessor of land is removed, then the land does not disappear. The rationale for ownership of land itself is not based on the just notion that the possessor is providing or adding the possessed and it therefore has a distinct nature in terms of justice.
Lets go back a step, I want to reinforce something.
I said earlier:
“Getting rid of rich people won’t make the poor rich”
Let’s re-examine this, because in SOME cases it actually will.
If the duke of Westminster were to suddenly evaporate from history, then all those people who have been subject to his rents would most likely be owners and would be paying a tenth of what they do now to ‘maintain’ their dwelling. He is a net drain on the productive economy to the extent that he is enabled, by his ownerships, to charge others for services that others would very easily be able to provide for themselves if they were legally entitled to do so. That is the nature of land ownership; land value as holding comes from its unique ability to regionally restrict the free provision of services in a market and therefore insist that a surcharge based on acces to this restrictive power is charged. Imagine if all the slumlords became so fed up with their lot that they couldn’t be bothered charging rent and monopolising available housing any longer and all went on strike or sold up and fucked off to the moon. Many people would truly and in actuality become more wealthy, freer, and happier simply as a result of their blessed absence in the real estate market.
Posts: 357 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
Guess I out-resent you.
Yes, because resentment is such a great ideal upon which to base a worldview.
Again, all of this stuff hinges on certain things.
- Where is the free-choice?
- Is force being applied somewhere?
The answer in a socialist program is free-choice is set aside and force is applied somewhere to get money from one person and give it to another whether they want to or not.
As I said before, some socialism appears to be required in order to deal with the holes that the free market cannot or will not address. But add too much socialism to the mix, and the bread falls. The bigger the bread, the more socialism, the more likely the falling.
Socialism requires capital to sustain it and yet strangles it to survive. It's a leach that can kill the host. Or at least drive the host somewhere else for treatment.
I hardly think that Christianity wants to ally itself with the moral equivelant of a leach. Christianity wants poeple to be voluntarily loving to each other, not coercively.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Do you honestly think that landlords, employers and corporations never employ force? Do you honestly think that employees and tenants are always free? Really?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
As I said before, some socialism appears to be required in order to deal with the holes that the free market cannot or will not address. But add too much socialism to the mix, and the bread falls. The bigger the bread, the more socialism, the more likely the falling.
Socialism requires capital to sustain it and yet strangles it to survive. It's a leach that can kill the host. Or at least drive the host somewhere else for treatment.
I hardly think that Christianity wants to ally itself with the moral equivelant of a leach. Christianity wants poeple to be voluntarily loving to each other, not coercively.
Despite being quite strongly state-socialist in my politics - I think a lot of service-level facilities (transport, healthcare, education) should be provided by the state (though not exclusively so) - I agree with the quoted section above.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I'm sure you cann't deny that Richard Branson has created jobs can you?
Why does that mean that I have to admire him, want to be like him and see him as some sort of folk hero? Which seems to be what the pro-super-rich are suggesting. That worship of such people is mandatory. I don't like Branson, or Trump, or Buffet or Gates etc. Sorry but I am entitled to dislike them.
Why does that mean I have change my mind about anything I have said on this thread?
I can do good work with something without having any right to have it in the first place.
Because hatred of someone that you don't even know, based on assumptions about which you don't seem to be willing to discuss, when confronted with points that clearly demonstrate your asumptions were invalid, is such a great quality to strive for?
By all means hate on. It has worked so well for so many.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
based on assumptions about which you don't seem to be willing to discuss, when confronted with points that clearly demonstrate your asumptions were invalid, is such a great quality to strive for?
1) There is nothing on this thread I am not willing to discuss
2) I haven't noticed any such points. Can you point me to them?
3) I resent the idea that being hugely wealthy is automatically worthy of respect. It isn't.
(Spelling)
[ 08. May 2007, 15:55: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Do you honestly think that landlords, employers and corporations never employ force? Do you honestly think that employees and tenants are always free? Really?
"Always" is such a loaded word, I won't go there.
We are talking about two "systems". Systems are complex, nasty, messy things. So we are not evaluating "Always" we are evaluating "Mostly".
MOSTLY landlords, employers, and even corporations do not use force. They are interested in doing business with us. Doing business requires cooperation, not coercion. If you don't like the way a landlord, employer, or corporation does business, you have the choice to go to another landlord, employer, or corporation with your business. That's choice.
I've lived under at least ten landlords in my lifetime. Never felt like I didn't have a choice as to move out, always moved out when I wanted to. Never evicted. No significant problems. Nice people with one exception and I left when they changed to that landlord.
Socialist systems are MOSTLY One Way. Their way. They choose. You obey. Thats it. No choice. I don't get to choose where or what they do with my Social Security monies. In fact, it's a reasonable bet I won't even see them thanks to the Baby Boomers finishing off the system.
I don't get to choose to opt-out of socialist medicare systems when I retire. I have to pay into it. In addition to the monies I save for myself.
I certainly don't get to choose much less see any part of the monies that go into welfare systems.
Force, force, force. No choice.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
MOSTLY landlords, employers, and even corporations do not use force.
Depends on what you mean by force, I suppose.
quote:
I don't get to choose to opt-out of socialist medicare systems when I retire. I have to pay into it.
And that's bad because? It's your moral duty to pay into it!
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Very, very few millionaires started off literally penniless. Most of them inherited substantial sums of money, like Richard Branson.
You started with a false premise there I will grant you. Very few people start off "penniless". But I showed you that 60% of the SuperRich in this country did not inherit any significant part of their welath. They started off no better than you or me. You dont' want to believe that, this is clear. Yet is is true. Check the Fortune 400. I bet you will find you have more in common with those people when they were young than you might realize at first glance.
Yet you still unreasonably (IMO) hate them. You unreasonably (again IMO) want to take their money away.
But don't let me ruin your position. If you want to sit and hate, knock yourself out.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I don't get to choose to opt-out of socialist medicare systems when I retire. I have to pay into it. In addition to the monies I save for myself.
I certainly don't get to choose much less see any part of the monies that go into welfare systems.
Force, force, force. No choice.
All that shows is that you have a low view of taxation. It doesn't say anything about the appropriateness of the use of the money once the government has it.
I for one think that subsidies to business are both against capitalism (by artificially preferring one entrepreneur over another) and socialism (by using public funds to contribute to private corporate profit, instead of to enhance the public good). Welfare may not be wonderful, but it's better than handouts to (for example) banking consortia. (Which is what the privatisation of UK railways amounts to.)
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to take their money away.
Yep. I do. And give it to those who deserve to have it more than they do.
And, in terms of values and worldview, I doubt I have anything in common with any of them.
[ 08. May 2007, 16:21: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
It's your moral duty to pay into it!
Here we go with the morals again. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I suppose I can grant you that this is again one of those things that we probably have to have in a capitalist soceity. But I question whether the "moral" is as clear as you make it out to be. Let's play a "what if"....
What if, when the Baby Boomers retire, all 40 gazillion of them (a technical term ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) and sink Medicare/Social Security. Blow it up. Gone.
There are not enough young people to support the socialist behemoth under the wieght of Boomers. Do we simply screw the younger people for more? Tax them until they bleed? How can that be moral? Taking from the next generation because the Baby Boomers (who are generally quite a wealthy lot themselves) "get theirs"? Or do we screw the Boomers out of the monies thay have put into for 45 years, maybe? Is that moral?
Or do we privatize? Do we turn it over to Corporations under the State like Chile has done quite succesfully? Oh heaven's NO! We can't do that. Privite never works. Excpet for when it does. Like in Chile.
Do you see the moral entanglements I am setting up here? As I have said:
This Is An Amoral Situation.
You can wish it to not be, but that is just a wish. Anytime you take money from one person and give it to another, it is still a TAKE. It may be a morally justified TAKE, in your view, but do two wrongs make a right? And how does that corrupt your soul? That it's perfectly okay to screw someone for their money under some position you think is "right".
I'm not saying I don't make that choice myself, mind you. I've already said I might. I just simply do not declare it always to be the moral choice. It's simply a choice.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I for one think that subsidies to business are both against capitalism (by artificially preferring one entrepreneur over another) and socialism (by using public funds to contribute to private corporate profit, instead of to enhance the public good). Welfare may not be wonderful, but it's better than handouts to (for example) banking consortia. (Which is what the privatisation of UK railways amounts to.)
T.
I think subsidies to business ARE a form of socialism.
More seriously. I despise business subsidies worse than any social program you could devise. In that I am VERY consistent. I don't want to give money to Papio's Programs, and I sure as shit want to take all business subisides and give them back to the taxpayer.
Fuck that.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
but do two wrongs make a right? And how does that corrupt your soul? That it's perfectly okay to screw someone for their money under some position you think is "right".
Requiring people to perform their moral duty is not a wrong at all.
It doesn't corrupt anyone's soul. What corrupts souls is the view that to be human is to endlessly consume more and more and more at the expense of everyone else. THAT is the evil here.
I don't accept that I am screwing anyone. If i don't deserve to have something, I have no complaint if it is taken away.
[ 08. May 2007, 16:32: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stars
Shipmate
# 10804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Do you honestly think that landlords, employers and corporations never employ force? Do you honestly think that employees and tenants are always free? Really?
"Always" is such a loaded word, I won't go there.
We are talking about two "systems". Systems are complex, nasty, messy things. So we are not evaluating "Always" we are evaluating "Mostly".
MOSTLY landlords, employers, and even corporations do not use force. They are interested in doing business with us. Doing business requires cooperation, not coercion. If you don't like the way a landlord, employer, or corporation does business, you have the choice to go to another landlord, employer, or corporation with your business. That's choice.
I've lived under at least ten landlords in my lifetime. Never felt like I didn't have a choice as to move out, always moved out when I wanted to. Never evicted.
This is, more or less, where the disingenuous distortions and lies of the right begin
Using the same argument, one may as well argue, that personal taxation rarely uses physical force, because the vast majority of people simply comply and pay tax without having the shit kicked out of them and they are, after all, completely free to leave the USA if they don’t wish to be charged. I would make no such silly argument, because people have an intrinsic right to be here, despite the government and despite private, government backed claims to own bits of the earth. Interestingly, if the USA were a privately owned estate then mad geo would argue that everyone in the us owed whatever rent was asked, precisely because staying in the USA was a matter of their ‘free choice’, yet he argues that precisely the same charges made by what he calls ‘government’ would amount to an abusive assault.
The inconsistency displayed by mad geo, above is at the heart of why most of us have lost our natural rights and don’t even recognise it.
Posts: 357 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Per the "Latest Numbers" table in the center of the page, the Federal Minimum Wage is $5.15/hr. The State Minimum Wage has to be at least that much. In some states, it's higher.
Well, that's about the same as the minimum wage in the UK. We have higher sales tax than anywhere in the States I think (17.5% nationally), so what we gain on you guys in the hourly rate we probably lose once we purchase anything.
£5.52/hr = $11.04hr at recent exchange rates.
Except it doesn't work like that. The only benefit of the exchange rate is if I was to change a stash of sterling into dollars (which I'm about to do, since the rate is fab and I'm about to need some dollars) and spend time in the States. For the purpose of living there $5 equals £5, with the exception that certain items are cheaper in the States than here and there is a lower rate of sales tax. So the dollar will go further in the States than the pound will here, but the difference in real terms is probably marginal.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
but do two wrongs make a right? And how does that corrupt your soul? That it's perfectly okay to screw someone for their money under some position you think is "right".
Requiring people to perform their moral duty is not a wrong at all.
It doesn't corrupt anyone's soul. What corrupts souls is the view that to be human is to endlessly consume more and more and more at the expense of everyone else. THAT is the evil here.
I don't accept that I am screwing anyone. If I don't deserve to have something, I have no complaint if it is taken away.
You can deny that you are a young, white, and (lower) middle class (or whatever you actually are, but I am pretty sure I am clsoe to right). That doesn't make your denial so.
Spot the fallacy:
- "Moral Duty".
- "Evil"
- "Expense of EVERYONE else".
Again, plugging your ears and yelling "Full Stop" doesn't convince anyone of your position. And remember, you are not necessarily convincing ME.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
See to me, Marvin, the fact that most people hate their jobs and are in jobs that don't exactly match their skills simply is more evidence that capitalism needs to be replaced by something less inhuman.
Like what? Can you honestly imagine a system where everyone does what they like and want to do, and not tell me it would be hideous?
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to take their money away.
Yep. I do. And give it to those who deserve to have it more than they do.
Why do they deserve to have it more? And if it was given to them, wouldn't they just become the undeserving rich and the erstwhile rich become the deserving poor?
Should everything just be shared out perfectly equally to everyone? I think you know what the problem would be with that - we're back to the "well then why bother working?" issue.
Or do you have in mind a maximum amount that anyone should have, regardless of what they've done to earn it? What then happens to the rest of the wealth?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to take their money away.
Yep. I do. And give it to those who deserve to have it more than they do.
Since this thread asks whether Christianity is the same as socialism, and if socialism says that the rich should be robbed to give to the poor, then socialism and Christianity are not alike. Christianity encourages the rich to give to the poor (and indeed encourages the poor to give to the poor!); it doesn't advocate taking wealth from the rich. Without the rich, there would be no support for the poor.
Who is worthy of wealth in your view, Papio? And what exactly is 'wealth'? £15,000 pa or £150,000 pa or £1,500,000 or what?
Making a moral judgement about a person's worthiness for anything is to risk being on the receiving end of someone else's judgement about your own worthiness. If socialism advocates such judgement then that is another difference between it and Christianity, since in Christianity the teaching is that the only person equipped to judge anyone is God.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You can deny that you are a young, white, and (lower) middle class (or whatever you actually are, but I am pretty sure I am clsoe to right).
Gee, that's so relavent isn't it? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Spot the fallacy:
I can see plenty of illogical arguments in YOUR posts. None at all in my own.
quote:
Originally Posted by Littlelady
Who is worthy of wealth in your view, Papio?
No-one. No-one who has ever lived, ever will live or lives currently. No-one at all.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Making a moral judgement about a person's worthiness for anything is to risk being on the receiving end of someone else's judgement about your own worthiness. If socialism advocates such judgement then that is another difference between it and Christianity, since in Christianity the teaching is that the only person equipped to judge anyone is God.
It's not about judging worth, moral or otherwise, it's about judging need. I wouldn't presume to judge another person's worth, but I think I could have a fair stab at the relative needs of different groups of people.
A person who performs physical labour all day needs more food and water than a person who sits behind a computer. A person with learning difficulties needs more education provision than a person without. A sick person needs more healthcare provision than a healthy one. A person with young children needs more (of most things) than a person with none.
And so on.
To measure `wealth' in terms of money is very much a capitalist concern. To ask a socialist how much wealth is too much is pointless because, on the whole, socialists don't see wealth in monetary terms. Or in any terms at all, in some cases.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to take their money away.
Yep. I do. And give it to those who deserve to have it more than they do.
Since this thread asks whether Christianity is the same as socialism, and if socialism says that the rich should be robbed to give to the poor, then socialism and Christianity are not alike.
It doesn't. It says that taxation should be used
to lessen the inequalities between rich and poor. And Christianity does say that people should pay their taxes.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to take their money away.
Yep. I do. And give it to those who deserve to have it more than they do.
Since this thread asks whether Christianity is the same as socialism, and if socialism says that the rich should be robbed to give to the poor, then socialism and Christianity are not alike. Christianity encourages the rich to give to the poor (and indeed encourages the poor to give to the poor!); it doesn't advocate taking wealth from the rich. Without the rich, there would be no support for the poor.
Who is worthy of wealth in your view, Papio? And what exactly is 'wealth'? £15,000 pa or £150,000 pa or £1,500,000 or what?
Making a moral judgement about a person's worthiness for anything is to risk being on the receiving end of someone else's judgement about your own worthiness. If socialism advocates such judgement then that is another difference between it and Christianity, since in Christianity the teaching is that the only person equipped to judge anyone is God.
Well, Jesus angrily condemned humanity for it's lack of generosity (the poor you will always have with you) and believed it was a sin to be rich (easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven). He commanded the rich young ruler to give all his money to the poor if he wanted to become a Christian.
Apart from that, what CrookedCucumber said.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Making a moral judgement about a person's worthiness for anything is to risk being on the receiving end of someone else's judgement about your own worthiness. If socialism advocates such judgement then that is another difference between it and Christianity, since in Christianity the teaching is that the only person equipped to judge anyone is God.
You know, I have always found socialism more honest and realistic than Christianity in that regard. Most of the most dogmatic and judgemental people I have ever met in my life have been Christians.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
You know, I have always found socialism more honest and realistic than Christianity in that regard. Most of the most dogmatic and judgemental people I have ever met in my life have been Christians.
I once read somewhere that where you were born was overwhelmingly influential in your political persuasion.
I imagine only a few ever get past it.
[like I have]
[ 10. May 2007, 17:46: Message edited by: 206 ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Most of the most dogmatic and judgemental people I have ever met in my life have been Christians.
Sure couldn't tell that from your posts here as a socialist. If I went off your posts, you socialistas got the Christians beat hands down, and I've know some of the most dogmatic Christians alive.
Where were you born 206?
I don't know if I agree with that assessment. I think many people change political affiliation over a lifetime. My wife went from Republican to Dem. I went from Republican to Libertarian to possibly voting for whoever the hell is better IMO in the next election.
There is a (probably Republican) saying that says "Anyone that is a Republican in college has no heart, and anyone that is a Democrat after college has no brain". While that is of course full of shit, it seems to indicate that people do change over life.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally Posted by Littlelady
Who is worthy of wealth in your view, Papio?
No-one. No-one who has ever lived, ever will live or lives currently. No-one at all.
Oh, well that's alright then. Everyone should be poor, then we'll have Utopia.
Yeesh.
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Well, Jesus angrily condemned humanity for it's lack of generosity (the poor you will always have with you)
Interesting that that comment by Jesus was made in response to Judas' criticism of Mary after she used precious oils to anoint His feet, rather than selling them to give to the poor.
I'd have said it was Judas who better represented Socialist ideology in that little encounter. Like I said, interesting...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
So the only alternatives are being dirt poor or being a billionaire? Is that honestly what you think?
BTW, Judas here is a typical capitalist. He *claims* it's to benefit society, but really he was going to be the only one who benefitted.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I’m about halfway through reading “God’s Politics” by Jim Wallis, which covers more general area of politics and religion (in the US). His approach is that liberal (or left-wing or socialist – define it how you will) politicians tend to shy away from introducing faith into debates and that is inherently wrong, especially for liberal politicians of faith. Indeed, he points out, it is the religious right (in the US at least) that bring Christianity and politics together most effectively, and they do it by narrowing the debate to hot-button topics such as abortion and gay-marriage.
Wallis advocates using faith to drive the political agenda by reference to social justice, poverty and peace instead. Now as a Christian this seems proper, after all Christ said “Whatever you do to the least of me you do to me”.
However I reject the notion that this language is the sole prerogative of the left. There are many reasons for poverty and war and both right and left can and do more to fix them.
Neither does so effectively at the moment. If we want to point to Communism failing to provide social justice, and damaging “the least of me” then there are plenty of examples, not least Pol Pot in Cambodia, so let’s not pretend that any political viewpoint has the moral high-ground.
I accept the basic premise of Wallis’ book and the aims of his “fourth way” prophetic politics are laudable, however they are also politically naïve and in some places it’s downright disingenuous. But I think it beholden on all of us to question our politicians more about faith and whether they are prepared to try to place “the least of me” front and centre. They may not always but that’s the way of this imperfect world.
To bring this back to socialism specifically, may I present this thought that’s been running through my mind whilst reading the book. Socialism, to my mind, is an attempt to eradicate poverty. To level the playing field through redistribution of wealth in order to have no one who can be labelled poor. However I keep thinking of Christ’s words, “The poor you will always have with you; you will only have me for a little while.” It seems that Christ himself recognised that you can never solve the problem of poverty. Poverty is relative and rather like painting the Forth Bridge, we need a continuous process that improves the lot of the poor, but we need to be realistic in recognising that there will always be rich and poor.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Making a moral judgement about a person's worthiness for anything is to risk being on the receiving end of someone else's judgement about your own worthiness. If socialism advocates such judgement then that is another difference between it and Christianity, since in Christianity the teaching is that the only person equipped to judge anyone is God.
It's not about judging worth, moral or otherwise, it's about judging need. I wouldn't presume to judge another person's worth, but I think I could have a fair stab at the relative needs of different groups of people.
Fair enough (I think) but I was responding at that point to Papio's comment regarding worth.
Your preference for relative need as a measure by which to judge raises the question in my mind: when does a need become big enough or valid enough to merit a financial response? For example, many of the 'landed gentry' became cash poor in the mid 20th century (particularly once the socialists raised taxes to 70% or whatever the higher rate tax was in the 1970s), which is why they sold off their inherited properties or developed them into wildlife/amusement parks. Yet which socialist would dip into their pockets or advocate other pockets be dipped into to help the landed gentry?
And would you only make the judgement about groups of people? What about individuals? (Or perhaps I'm being pedantic there? ) It strikes me that Jesus dealt with individuals: he helped the Roman centurian, the Samaritan woman, the prostitute, the tax collector. He didn't exclude anyone from his help (albeit mostly pastoral). So far as I can remember, the only grouping he did in this context was 'the poor' and 'the rich', but who knows where his dividing line was?
quote:
To ask a socialist how much wealth is too much is pointless because, on the whole, socialists don't see wealth in monetary terms. Or in any terms at all, in some cases.
I'm tempted to say that's rubbish. Socialists measure wealth in monetary terms as much as anyone else: socialists are very clear that they think Bill Gates is way too wealthy, for instance! How else are they judging his wealth but in monetary terms?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
So the only alternatives are being dirt poor or being a billionaire? Is that honestly what you think?
BTW, Judas here is a typical capitalist. He *claims* it's to benefit society, but really he was going to be the only one who benefitted.
Typical Capitalist.
Yes, because Warren Buffet and Bill Gates certainly aren't doing ANYTHING to benefit society. No, Not.....At.....All.
Hell, even without their Supermassive Philathropy Beyond All Before It, Bill Gates and Buffet did more to benefit society with their corporations than anyone here probably will ever dream of, with the possible exception of Simon perhaps. Without Gates, 90% of whatever gets done with Windows and Office might not have gotten done as effectively. Without Buffet, a whole host of companies would not be providing us as effectively with things we actually need. You know, like underwear, insurance, medical devices, furniture, and homes.
This assumption that capitalism is all about greed or even profit is fallacious. Many businesses serve to fill a need in society. MANY.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Since this thread asks whether Christianity is the same as socialism, and if socialism says that the rich should be robbed to give to the poor, then socialism and Christianity are not alike.
It doesn't. It says that taxation should be used
to lessen the inequalities between rich and poor. And Christianity does say that people should pay their taxes.
While I agree that Christianity does say people should pay their taxes, since when has taxation been a voluntary enterprise? Money is being taken from people when they are taxed. They have no choice but to pay if they want to stay out of jail. And excessively high taxation could indeed be 'daylight robbery'.
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Well, Jesus angrily condemned humanity for it's lack of generosity (the poor you will always have with you) and believed it was a sin to be rich (easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven). He commanded the rich young ruler to give all his money to the poor if he wanted to become a Christian.
Since this isn't Kergymania I don't want to get too bogged down in what the Bible does (or doesn't say) but Jesus got mad about a few things, though I have always read the verse you included as being a statement of fact rather than an expression of anger. As for Jesus believing it was a sin to be rich that is not so at all. Jesus believed it was wrong to hold on to riches, to make them your god. Because there are people who do make material goods/money their god, it is therefore harder for them to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. When given the choice, it would seem that the rich young ruler preferred his riches to Jesus.
I rather think it is socialists who see wealth as a sin.
Class dismissed.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
We should also recognise that profit is not the end-point of the money flow. When money becomes profit, it doesn't suddenly stop being money and taken out of the economy.
Part of the profit is paid to shareholders, who spend it or save it.
The remaining profit is retained by the company and either spent (investing in new plant, new businesses etc) or put in the bank.
The money spent is returned to the economy and the recievers of the money are enriched.
The money deposited in the bank is loaned out to people to buy houses, cars and holidays, or to start up businesses, or it is lent to businesses to invest in new plant, new opportunities etc.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
No Deano, you don't understand. Shareholders must be evil too! I mean they have to be right? They are affiliated with money, which is the root of all evil, ya know? They can't possibly do anything good because they were tainted by the presence of a CORPORATION <Shudder> <Shudder>. You know, those artificial constructs composed of lots of human beings that are clearly evil in their mission to create something bigger than themselves by banding together towards SOME end. Oh, of course I forgot, becuase it's a CORPORATION, those ends can't be good. Why, even if they make tires, thsoe are EVIL tires. Or if they make baby diapers, well you'll probably have an evil baby, since it was diapered by a corporation. Forget cars, those are always made by corporations.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Well, Jesus angrily condemned humanity for it's lack of generosity (the poor you will always have with you) and believed it was a sin to be rich (easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven). He commanded the rich young ruler to give all his money to the poor if he wanted to become a Christian.
I don't hear those words as a condemnation, but just an impartial observation of what it is like to be incarnate in material reality.
The rich and comfortable typically (though not always) use money to insulate themselves from the experiences that challenge the less well-heeled to grow in spirit and in faith.
The poor are always with us because reality is polar: right down to the positive/negative charges of the particles that form matter. Every state of being has its polarity. As long as there are the wealthy there will be poor. As long as there are poor, there will be the wealthy. As long as we continue to wish to experience this material reality, there will be polarity.
LAFF
[ 10. May 2007, 21:18: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
This assumption that capitalism is all about greed or even profit is fallacious. Many businesses serve to fill a need in society. MANY.
Well, yeah, because if no one needed their services, there would be no customers. However, businesses will only fill the need if there is a profit to be made. No business will survive serving people who can't pay, no matter how badly they need the service. And there's often a lot more profit to be made selling things people *don't* need.
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Money is being taken from people when they are taxed. They have no choice but to pay if they want to stay out of jail.
IIRC, the last time we covered this ground, a number of Shipmates in different countries pointed out that one does not go to jail for being unable to pay one's taxes. One MAY go to jail for tax EVASION, which is something completely different. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
IIRC, the last time we covered this ground, a number of Shipmates in different countries pointed out that one does not go to jail for being unable to pay one's taxes. One MAY go to jail for tax EVASION, which is something completely different. OliviaG
Hmmm. I do know that choosing not to pay your taxes is against the law in the UK, so there will be some punishment for it. I have always thought it was jail time, but I'm happy to stand corrected. I don't know what the legal definition of tax evasion is - perhaps it involves complicated manipulation of money as opposed to simply not paying. Either way, I certainly want to avoid the long arm of the law, so I keep on paying my taxes. Not that I could avoid them - employees here generally have their taxes taken at source by their employers. Alas. Not much chance of notoriety as a major tax evader for me! (So much for the offshore account)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
The poor are always with us because reality is polar: right down to the positive/negative charges of the particles that form matter. Every state of being has its polarity. As long as there are the wealthy there will be poor. As long as there are poor, there will be the wealthy. As long as we continue to wish to experience this material reality, there will be polarity.
Seems similar to the Unity of Opposites, don't you think?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
This assumption that capitalism is all about greed or even profit is fallacious. Many businesses serve to fill a need in society. MANY.
Well, yeah, because if no one needed their services, there would be no customers. However, businesses will only fill the need if there is a profit to be made. No business will survive serving people who can't pay, no matter how badly they need the service. And there's often a lot more profit to be made selling things people *don't* need.
Bzzzt.
There are Non-Profit Businesses (NPOs). They serve people that can't pay when they badly need a service. Ah those wiley businessmen, imagine the audacity to form businesses that do not make money! Doing all those good works without the socialists that would take money in order to help. What Bastards.
[ 10. May 2007, 23:22: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
No Deano, you don't understand. Shareholders must be evil too! I mean they have to be right? They are affiliated with money, which is the root of all evil, ya know? They can't possibly do anything good because they were tainted by the presence of a CORPORATION <Shudder> <Shudder>. You know, those artificial constructs composed of lots of human beings that are clearly evil in their mission to create something bigger than themselves by banding together towards SOME end. Oh, of course I forgot, becuase it's a CORPORATION, those ends can't be good. Why, even if they make tires, thsoe are EVIL tires. Or if they make baby diapers, well you'll probably have an evil baby, since it was diapered by a corporation. Forget cars, those are always made by corporations.
Well, my prejudice that no public service should ever be private under any circumstances or to any extent aside, your prejudice against government seems not one whit less silly to me than my prejudice against coporations seems to you.
The reasons I don't want coporations in charge are very simple. They aren't accountable, they can't be voted out, and they are motivated by profit.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Fair enough (I think) but I was responding at that point to Papio's comment regarding worth.
My point wasn't about worth, it was about desert. Serious question: How any anyone, anyone at all, no matter how splendid or wonderful, *deserve* to be a multi-millionaire? Isn't that an obscene concept when people are starving or homeless? And I hope you will acknowledge that no-one actually *needs* that amount of money. It is just status and nothing more. I would seriously question that anyone at all needs more than about £250, 000 p. a. Almost certainly, that figure is too high.
And I just ain't ever going to agree that taxation is theft or immoral. I really don't think it is. I think people do *agree* to pay tax in so far as they willingly live in this country. In that respect, they agree to pay tax just as much as most people "agree" to pay rent or pay for electricity.
[ 11. May 2007, 00:00: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
There are Non-Profit Businesses (NPOs). They serve people that can't pay when they badly need a service.
I think you're really stretching the commonly-accepted definition of a business. Your acronym gives the game away - they're normally called non-profit ORGANIZATIONS.
quote:
Many key business performance measures don’t work for most not-for-profit organizations. For example, the “bottom line” measurement of profit or loss indicates how effective a business is at achieving its goal of generating profits for the owners. However, generating profits is not a goal for NPOs. These organizations have no owners, often provide goods and services to constituents free of charge and typically seek resources from people and organizations that do not expect economic benefits in return. Thus, the bottom line doesn’t work for NPOs.
Source: Performance Measures for NGOs
So here's a statement from The American Institute of Chartered Accountants that says that the performance of an NPO cannot be judged by the same criteria as a business.
Now, I grew up in a two-entrepeneur family (surprised?), but I also think alternative models also have great potential: co-operatives, credit unions, whatever. I'm a member of a credit union, an outdoor equipment co-op, and a strata corporation. The credit union wants to maximize profit; the co-op wants to make just enough money to be able to contribute to environmental causes; and the strata members would revolt if the corporation made a profit, because it would mean owners were paying in more in fees than they got out in services.
So, to conclude, it's a free country, y'all got free speech, but it seems misleading to group together organizations with very different goals under one very emotive word. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
And I just ain't ever going to agree that taxation is theft or immoral. I really don't think it is. I think people do *agree* to pay tax in so far as they willingly live in this country.
Double posting to say I'm with Papio: paying taxe is one of the responsibilities of citizenship, just as charity is one of the responsibilities of a Christian. Christians get to decide for themselves* what they will do in terms of charity, but in a democracy, it's a collective decision which is binding on individuals. I understand this is very hard for some people to accept. OliviaG
*or in consultation with their spiritual adviser, or they tithe, or they get "guilted" into giving, but it's still fundamentally an individual decision
ETA grammar
[ 11. May 2007, 00:29: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
So the only alternatives are being dirt poor or being a billionaire? Is that honestly what you think?
No. But by removing the opportunity to become a billionaire you certainly advocate that particular alternative. Allow me to elucidate:
Once all billionaires are eliminated, will you go after the millionaires? After all, they would then be the ones with a disproportionate share of the wealth.
And after the millionaires have been removed, whom will you go after? Those who have thousands? Those who have more (by any amount) than the average wealth of the country? If you achieve your initial Socialist goals where exactly will you stop?
It would end with everyone having nothing. That is the only logical outcome, unless you specify a maximum amount any one person is allowed to own. Are you willing to do that? I submit that this is a "Put Up Or Shut Up" moment in this debate...
quote:
BTW, Judas here is a typical capitalist. He *claims* it's to benefit society, but really he was going to be the only one who benefitted.
Really? How exactly do you read that from the very scriptures you quoted?
quote:
Matthew 26:6-13
While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."
Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
quote:
Mark 14:3-9
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.
"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
quote:
John 12: 3-8
Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."
It can be feasably argued that the last case (John) features much speculation on the part of the writer, especially if we assume it was written far after Jesus' death, when Judas was already a hate figure. And much evidence points to John being the last Gospel to be written. In such a case there could well be a sound reason to conclude that the stated motivations of Judas were added by the writer in order to both dispel any ideas that Judas could have been on the right track, and to simultaneously give him a more 'evil' character.
After all, if it were such a notorious character objecting why do Mark and Matthew content themselves with saying simply that those present (note the plural and not the singular) were indignant?
OK, so I've got rather Kerygmaniacal there. But the point stands that you can't just take a Bible quote and insert your own political stance into it. The Bible has to be read independently of any contemporary political fad - only then will the timeless message it carries down the ages to us be seen. And that message is no more supportive of Socialism than it is of Conservatism, Communism, Fascism, Marxism or Blairism. End of.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And that message is no more supportive of Socialism than it is of Conservatism, Communism, Fascism, Marxism or Blairism. End of.
I disagree, but then I have already said that socialism and christianity are not the same thing.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Once all billionaires are eliminated, will you go after the millionaires? After all, they would then be the ones with a disproportionate share of the wealth.
And after the millionaires have been removed, whom will you go after? Those who have thousands? Those who have more (by any amount) than the average wealth of the country? If you achieve your initial Socialist goals where exactly will you stop?
I obviously haven't made myself clear.
An adequate summary of my arguement is:
1) No-one has the right to be a billionaire. That doesn't mean I think billionaires should be killed or that the government should take every penny. If people are billionaires that is a privelledge, but not a right, and it involves duty to others.
2) What I favour is a more complex system of progressive taxation. More bands. Those on minimum wage probably shouldn't pay any income tax at all. Those who are billionaires should pay a lot more than 40%. Maybe 70% or so, but I haven't worked it out precisely.
3) Such a scheme would not be immoral, since it involves no infringement of rights.
If a bloke is on around £40K, say, and pays 40% income tax, I would reject any claim on his part that he is unable to lead a fulfilling life due to financial constraints or that his tax band is a disincentive to work since he still has more money in his pocket then someone stacking shelfs. I have friends on around that sum, and I think that 40% income tax is about right for them, and so do they.
[ 11. May 2007, 01:35: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I suppose that means if someone cuts off 70% of your leg, that means that's okay too? I mean he didn't take the WHOLE leg.
I can say this Papio. Go ahead and tax the rich at 70%. They will flee your country and then we will simply show you what's its like to watch your country die. Because if you could actually pull that off (which it won't) that is what would happen eventually.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Well in terms of deserving to be billionaire's, let's agree that there is nobody on this planet who we can say DESERVES to be that rich. If they are then fair enough, and if they become so then fair enough, but being "worthy enough" - which seems a definition of "deserve" that works - to be so is unattainable.
In other words people have become rich through their own efforts and good luck to them. They've obviously done something to generate that amount of money and I applaud their abilities such as they are. But there is nobody that I can think of that I can say of them "Oh they are so good they deserve to be given a billion pounds, so let's all chip in and give it to them!".
Having said all that, as an Anglican, every Sunday I say the line "All things come from you and of your own do we give you". So however rich people become is a gift from God anyway. That said we still have an obligation to alleviate the suffering caused by poverty.
My party - the Conservatives - believes that progressive taxation is the right way forward, but we also think that it ain't the only tool in the box. There are more things that can and should be done that don't involve taking money out of hard-working peoples pockets and giving it to others.
Nothing is ever black and white and to fall into the trap of thinking that high taxes are good for the poor is a fallacy and will help nobody. The Labour Government introduced a 90% income tax bracket in the 70's and I still had to live in a two-up-two-down with an outside toilet and a tin bath!
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
The poor are always with us because reality is polar: right down to the positive/negative charges of the particles that form matter. Every state of being has its polarity. As long as there are the wealthy there will be poor. As long as there are poor, there will be the wealthy. As long as we continue to wish to experience this material reality, there will be polarity.
Seems similar to the Unity of Opposites, don't you think?
I don't know what you are referring to. I just know that without positive/negative polarity, reality as we know it would not exist.
LAFF
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
