Ethics of wealth and taxation

[jps]

What you say has been true of past attempts at establishing a communist society, but it is not inevitable. The lack of emphasis on democracy in these attempts in my opinion was in a large part to blame for this.
A society should not be designed around its worst elements. Safeguards could be created to deal with the odd greedy person in a communist society far more easily than in our present one as no one would have more influence than another.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by jps
What you say has been true of past attempts at establishing a communist society, but it is not inevitable.

Well, I'll not bother responding further, because IMHO, you're just naive if you think that. Nothing personal, I'd say that to anyone to said what you just said.

Oh, I'm also annoyed that you rarely address my points directly, it seems to me that you just get on your soap box.

Communism cannot work while there exists competition for resources and as long as there are humans in their current form. You are short sighted in your vision, for the fundamental challenge of a "new" political system is figuring out how to get the people from the old one to the new one.

Finally, you missed the most important point I made about it in my previous post... well, you ignored it. Refute this regarding your idealistic attempt at government: "Regardless of the level of spirituality it is possible to propagate into society, it can't be fully progagated except by force, which is exactly unethical and contrary to the purpose of the government per your definition."

 

[jps]

Originally posted by wesmorris

Oh, I'm also annoyed that you rarely address my points directly, it seems to me that you just get on your soap box.

What points have I failed to address?

Originally posted by wesmorris
Communism cannot work while there exists competition for resources and as long as there are humans in their current form. You are short sighted in your vision, for the fundamental challenge of a "new" political system is figuring out how to get the people from the old one to the new one.

Communism would largely eliminate competition for resources.
I'm not sure what you mean by "humans in their current form"
I agree that the fundemental challenge is how to get people from the old system to the new one. I think to go from a system like ours to a communist system would require a transitional phase.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Finally, you missed the most important point I made about it in my previous post... well, you ignored it. Refute this regarding your idealistic attempt at government: "Regardless of the level of spirituality it is possible to propagate into society, it can't be fully progagated except by force, which is exactly unethical and contrary to the purpose of the government per your definition."

What does spirituality have to do with this? Again, what other point?

I said I was sorry about that article, I meant it only as a reference for how the federal reserve maintains the unemployment rate.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by jps
What points have I failed to address?

Well, you excluded several points I made regarding education and ingnored my statement below originally. I'll just shutup about all that, rephrase and await your response.

Originally posted by jps

Communism would largely eliminate competition for resources.

That is untrue. I addressed that before, maybe you didn't get it or something. Read through my last long post and see where I've illustrated that this is very very unlikely. I'll add that you are perfectly optimistic (which I can respect, but it has no bearing on reality) regarding communism. I do wish you were right but, you're really really not. Competition for resources is more instinctual and inherent to the human condition that you seem to understand. Resources are "scarce". There will always be competition for them, that's just fundamental and in my opinion, unquestionable. To ignore that indicates you really don't understand human nature. YOUR nature might be whatever, but we're talking the species.

Originally posted by jps

I'm not sure what you mean by "humans in their current form".

I mean that humans will change over time. Later, fundamental human flaws might change. I cannot predict with certainty that humans will be the same 200 years from now. Regardless, as of NOW (which is what I mean by "humans in their current form") I believe my statement to be exactly true.

Originally posted by jps

I agree that the fundemental challenge is how to get people from the old system to the new one. I think to go from a system like ours to a communist system would require a transitional phase.

You're right about that.

Originally posted by jps

What does spirituality have to do with this? Again, what other point?

I don't think I phrased it well. How about this. Refute the following:

"I hate your idea. I would never vote for it, which wouldn't matter right cuz there's no voting in communism? Regardless, I don't like it, so you'd have to implement your idea on me by force, which is exactly unethical and contrary to the purpose of the government per your definition, IMO"

 

[jps]

Originally posted by wesmorris

That is untrue. I addressed that before, maybe you didn't get it or something. Read through my last long post and see where I've illustrated that this is very very unlikely. I'll add that you are perfectly optimistic (which I can respect, but it has no bearing on reality) regarding communism. I do wish you were right but, you're really really not. Competition for resources is more instinctual and inherent to the human condition that you seem to understand. Resources are "scarce". There will always be competition for them, that's just fundamental and in my opinion, unquestionable. To ignore that indicates you really don't understand human nature. YOUR nature might be whatever, but we're talking the species.

I read through your post and all I can find is the biological determinism argument, which is just a fundemental disagreement we have. As I've said whatever the status quo, it is percieved as human nature, it was established scientific fact not that long ago, that different races were inherently better than others, the fact that certain races were on the bottom of society was therefore considered human nature. Most people no longer believe this. I think the view that people are inherently greedy will go the same way in the future. How do you figure that resources are scarce? There's plenty for all to live quite comfortably.

Originally posted by wesmorris
"I hate your idea. I would never vote for it, which wouldn't matter right cuz there's no voting in communism? Regardless, I don't like it, so you'd have to implement your idea on me by force, which is exactly unethical and contrary to the purpose of the government per your definition, IMO"

As I thought I made clear, democracy is far more compatible with communism than with capitalism. Getting people to understand that communism is in their best interest and is in the interest of humanity in general is a huge challenge. If the majority voted on this, then yes, it would be implemented by force, just like the current system is implemented by force on those who disagree with it, but at least with communism everyone would have an equal voice.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by jps
I read through your post and all I can find is the biological determinism argument, which is just a fundemental disagreement we have. As I've said whatever the status quo, it is percieved as human nature, it was established scientific fact not that long ago, that different races were inherently better than others, the fact that certain races were on the bottom of society was therefore considered human nature. Most people no longer believe this. I think the view that people are inherently greedy will go the same way in the future. How do you figure that resources are scarce?

That's how supply and demand works, resources are "scarce" if they are not abundant, which implies virtually unlimited like air or something. Demand would be zero if resources weren't scarce.

Originally posted by jps

There's plenty for all to live quite comfortably.

Why do you think that is? Because capitalism is a perpetual catylist for the economy. That's the beauty of it. Keeps it moving at it fastest possible theoretical rate, which keeps most people from starving (at least where the economy is good).

Originally posted by jps

As I thought I made clear, democracy is far more compatible with communism than with capitalism. Getting people to understand that communism is in their best interest and is in the interest of humanity in general is a huge challenge. If the majority voted on this, then yes, it would be implemented by force, just like the current system is implemented by force on those who disagree with it, but at least with communism everyone would have an equal voice.

Mob rule has no appeal to me. A representative republic, however flawed seems to be the most successful.. if you use the US as an example for instance.

The concept of Utopia is theoretically impossible because in order to attain it, everyone would have to have the same idea of Utopia. If everyone had the same idea of a Utopia, I don't think I'd want to live there... so how could it be what it claims? You see? Fair circumstances aren't gaurenteed... but we strive to ensure everyone gets a fair shake. Does that make sense?

 

[jps]

Originally posted by wesmorris
That's how supply and demand works, resources are "scarce" if they are not abundant, which implies virtually unlimited like air or something. Demand would be zero if resources weren't scarce.

On a global level, what resources are scarce? There's plenty of land, food, and water for all. There is demand for these things because they are not equitably distributed

Originally posted by wesmorris
Why do you think that is? Because capitalism is a perpetual catylist for the economy. That's the beauty of it. Keeps it moving at it fastest possible theoretical rate, which keeps most people from starving (at least where the economy is good).

How does keeping the economy moving keep people from starving? Frequently when the economy is reported as doing well it means only that the small percentage of people with significant stock holdings are benefiting and everyone else is suffering.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Mob rule has no appeal to me. A representative republic, however flawed seems to be the most successful

How so?

Originally posted by wesmorris
The concept of Utopia is theoretically impossible because in order to attain it, everyone would have to have the same idea of Utopia. If everyone had the same idea of a Utopia, I don't think I'd want to live there... so how could it be what it claims? You see? Fair circumstances aren't gaurenteed... but we strive to ensure everyone gets a fair shake. Does that make sense?

Utopia is impossible, but that doesn't mean things can't be better than they are now.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by jps
On a global level, what resources are scarce? There's plenty of land, food, and water for all. There is demand for these things because they are not equitably distributed

Edit: This was my afterthought: [Did you read my response to that? It's an economic term. You are wrong. Maybe this is your entire problem. You seem to think you have some idea as to what "equitably distributed" means. You probably do, but I'd wager a large sum that everyone has a different idea of "equitable". You seem to think that you can reach some magical equilibrium of "equitable distribution". I think you are not really thinking that through. Okay, you can use democracy to decide what's equitable, but in that case if 51% think A is equitable, and 49% think B is equitable... you go with A right? Then you justed fucked over 49% of the population. Nice. You've really "improved". I'm just using this as a simplistic example of a very complicated scenario. This is why capitalism is so far superior... it brings that down to the local level. If I want more, I have to contribute more and I can have it. Theoretically, that is the only way everyone could possibly be happy... problem is most people aren't empowered, but that's a whole different thread.]

It seems to me that you ignore the uh.. manufacturing and services that have to be in place in order change raw materials into finished goods. How do you propose to motivate individuals to organize and accomplish these tasks if not for money? If you set a limit on the money, well, as I discussed above.

Originally posted by jps

How does keeping the economy moving keep people from starving?

I was just making a generalization that when the economy is good (and you are wrong about your assessment of what indicates a good economy, you did mention an indicator, but there are more criteria to indicate a healthy economy than that) then people are employed, when people are employed, they can eat. A gross generalization yes, but I believe in general it IS true.

Originally posted by jps

Frequently when the economy is reported as doing well it means only that the small percentage of people with significant stock holdings are benefiting and everyone else is suffering.

I'm not talking about "is reported as", I'm talking about "is".

Originally posted by jps

How so?

The US is the most "successful" country in history in my opinion. The power, wealth and influence of the US is more vast than any country in history. It uses a representative republic. Seems like it must be effective in a way, though it is not "pretty".

Originally posted by jps

Utopia is impossible, but that doesn't mean things can't be better than they are now.

Of course, which is what is constantly happening in this country. We keep trying this and that and find stuff that works, keep it, trying something else, doesn't work, keep it, eventually someone gets pissed, we change it... on and on and on. It's a grand experiment... and it seems to be working to me. No, I don't have the same as everyone else and yes, I'm happy about that. It's called individuality. I want to be rewarded for being better than my competition.

 

[jps]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Edit: This was my afterthought: [Did you read my response to that? It's an economic term. You are wrong. Maybe this is your entire problem. You seem to think you have some idea as to what "equitably distributed" means. You probably do, but I'd wager a large sum that everyone has a different idea of "equitable". You seem to think that you can reach some magical equilibrium of "equitable distribution". I think you are not really thinking that through. Okay, you can use democracy to decide what's equitable, but in that case if 51% think A is equitable, and 49% think B is equitable... you go with A right? Then you justed fucked over 49% of the population. Nice. You've really "improved". I'm just using this as a simplistic example of a very complicated scenario. This is why capitalism is so far superior... it brings that down to the local level. If I want more, I have to contribute more and I can have it. Theoretically, that is the only way everyone could possibly be happy... problem is most people aren't empowered, but that's a whole different thread.]

equitable distribuition means that everyone would have a roughly equal amount of resources.
A system that 51% have opted for via an informed vote is far better than a system in which a tiny ruling class are the only ones with any influence.

Originally posted by wesmorris
It seems to me that you ignore the uh.. manufacturing and services that have to be in place in order change raw materials into finished goods. How do you propose to motivate individuals to organize and accomplish these tasks if not for money? If you set a limit on the money, well, as I discussed above.

As I said, every job can be assigned an income based on its difficulty, and the motivation to work would be that you share directly in the gains that come from your work, if everyone works harder and produces more, everyone gets more.

Originally posted by wesmorris
I was just making a generalization that when the economy is good (and you are wrong about your assessment of what indicates a good economy, you did mention an indicator, but there are more criteria to indicate a healthy economy than that) then people are employed, when people are employed, they can eat. A gross generalization yes, but I believe in general it IS true.

I'm not talking about "is reported as", I'm talking about "is".

The problem here is, with capitalism, what is good for one class is not good for another. A good economy to the upper class is an economy with a nice steady unemployment rate. A good economy for the lower class is one where they have a job and can afford to eat.

Originally posted by wesmorris
The US is the most "successful" country in history in my opinion. The power, wealth and influence of the US is more vast than any country in history. It uses a representative republic. Seems like it must be effective in a way, though it is not "pretty".

We do have the most wealth and influence, and in many ways are the most sucessful country in history, however we lag far behind other current countries in many areas, and even if we were better in every aspect that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve things.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Of course, which is what is constantly happening in this country. We keep trying this and that and find stuff that works, keep it, trying something else, doesn't work, keep it, eventually someone gets pissed, we change it... on and on and on. It's a grand experiment... and it seems to be working to me. No, I don't have the same as everyone else and yes, I'm happy about that. It's called individuality. I want to be rewarded for being better than my competition.

I don't think it seems to be working. Our country is headed further and further away from the ideals it was founded on, and closer and closer to a two class system to that portrayed in orwell's 1984

 

[wesmorris]

Well jps, I applaud your persistence, enthusiasm and intent. I believe you really want to make things better for everyone... as do I. I don't think further debate gets us anywhere because we fundamentally disagree and apparently neither of us will budge in our position.

I must say that I hope you are not in a position of any sort of power. I think your perspective is entirely idealistic and poorly thought through, and that you have no appreciation for beauty of capitalism. The reason it works so well is because it is directly analagous to mother nature's chaotic law - evolution. Have you ever tasted success? Do you come to your leftist perspective from a platform of fear? I think I can compete and be successful. I think you can to. I think everyone can if we empower ourselves to do so, or if the people with the appropriate wisdom can motivate us. I would implore you to open your mind and cease your condemnation of the system that feeds me and my family along with you and yours. I've had a similar perspective to yours, and it was due to my ignorance, immaturity, and lack of comprehension as to the scope and intensity of the problem of allocating resources. Regardless, I wish you well but please.. if you ever have a chance... don't steal my salary, house and goods to satiate your conscience (which is how I view your perspective).

 

[jps]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Well jps, I applaud your persistence, enthusiasm and intent. I believe you really want to make things better for everyone... as do I. I don't think further debate gets us anywhere because we fundamentally disagree and apparently neither of us will budge in our position.

I must say that I hope you are not in a position of any sort of power. I think your perspective is entirely idealistic and poorly thought through, and that you have no appreciation for beauty of capitalism. The reason it works so well is because it is directly analagous to mother nature's chaotic law - evolution. Have you ever tasted success? Do you come to your leftist perspective from a platform of fear? I think I can compete and be successful. I think you can to. I think everyone can if we empower ourselves to do so, or if the people with the appropriate wisdom can motivate us. I would implore you to open your mind and cease your condemnation of the system that feeds me and my family along with you and yours. I've had a similar perspective to yours, and it was due to my ignorance, immaturity, and lack of comprehension as to the scope and intensity of the problem of allocating resources. Regardless, I wish you well but please.. if you ever have a chance... don't steal my salary, house and goods to satiate your conscience (which is how I view your perspective).

Same to you, I'm sure you mean well and all, and really believe things are about as good as they can get. You'll probably continue believing this too, as meaningful change is unlikely to occur in either of our lifetimes.
The assertion that someone who opposes the current system is "closed minded" is absurd for obvious reasons. I didn't always hold these views and have come to them through experience. At one time I'm ashamed to admit, I actually campaigned for the Democratic party. I attribute this to lack of maturity(just as you dismiss my positions in the same way)

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by jps
Same to you, I'm sure you mean well and all, and really believe things are about as good as they can get.

That is NOT what I said, I'm saying our system now, though flawed is as good as they can be for now... and further, the system is dynamic, changing over time to adapt to the needs of the populous. I believe this system, given the current limitations of the world as we know it, is probably the best we can do for now.

Originally posted by jps

You'll probably continue believing this too, as meaningful change is unlikely to occur in either of our lifetimes.

Yes, I'll never be a communist. It used to appeal to me until I realized it's idealistic beyond realistic implementation. Further, I think you're WAY off there regarding "meaningfull change within our lifetimes". Things are on FIRE with technology and that's gonna change everything really really fast. The advent of AI will mean that all bets are off. The AIs will likely settle the argument we're now having, while taking into consideration all possible variables... whereas that's impossible for you or I.

Originally posted by jps

The assertion that someone who opposes the current system is "closed minded" is absurd for obvious reasons.

I disagree. I think you're either scared or you have "rich man's guilt". I certainly don't think you're grounded in reality... you're grounded in your theories, which as far as I can tell have NO basis in reality whatsoever, they're merely tidy little theories of "how things ought to be".

Originally posted by jps

I didn't always hold these views and have come to them through experience.

I'm sorry, but that's sad from my perspective. My guess is that you're under 25 (likely somewhat significantly) and your "experience" if you're lucky will lead you to a more realistic perspective. (I'm not saying MINE, but something more grounded in reality).

Originally posted by jps

At one time I'm ashamed to admit, I actually campaigned for the Democratic party.

That is sort of sad, but you shouldn't be ashamed in following up on what you believe in unless it fucked someone over. Even in that case you shouldn't be ashamed, you should just ensure that you do not repeat similar mistakes.

Originally posted by jps

I attribute this to lack of maturity(just as you dismiss my positions in the same way)

Indeed. Maturity seems to be an ongoing process. I think most people really reach maturity between 25 and 35 if they ever will. Hehe people sometimes never make it.