Emma_85 wrote:Oh, come off it Lex! Think of the Americans... so many of them live in poverty and there are some really sad stories.
Emma_85 wrote:Sorry, but it is for me.
I understand all your arguments, I've heard them all before (seen the film, but haven't read the book), but for my all these sad stories outweigh all your arguments.
Emma_85 wrote:I do think that justice should be higher on the priority list than compassion, but your agruments too me just sound stupid. I mean I'm more sort of practical: do what works, not theoretical. Because that's what your arguments all are.
Emma_85 wrote:I think the first thought here must be:'how can we make this world a better place for everyone to live in?' and you just have to do what works, not what may sound good. Like ok, you can say taxes are theft, but then they are a good kind of theft, because they help everyone. I'm not going to say theft is wrong, if you call taxes theft, because without taxes the state would fall apart, it's as simple as that.
bingley wrote:Firstly, I remember my parents and grandparents' stories of the 1930s. Lower taxation then but still lots of poor people not getting medical treatment they needed.
bingley wrote:I deny your basic premise, Lex. Taxation is not a form of theft.
bingley wrote:Yes, it has to be enforced, but so do all laws. Is it theft to insist on somebody paying a fine for misbehaviour?
bingley wrote:Is it theft to insist someone pay for services they want?
bingley wrote:Most if not all of us here live in democracies. The country collectively decides on what is an acceptable level of public service and what is an acceptable level of taxation to pay for it and who is going to pay for it.
bingley wrote:If you think the state takes too much of your income in taxation it is possible to argue that the state should take less. As it is a collective decision, yes sometimes you're going to lose out and things aren't going to be the way you want them. Change the govt.
Emma_85 wrote:Most of Europe is socialist (what you call socialist) and America is capitalist.
Emma_85 wrote:Marxist socialist ideas are great! I love them! They just don't work in reality, not because of the theory is wrong, but because the people are wrong. Same with the Christian ideas. Just don't work with how we humans really are.
Emma_85 wrote:And you said, look at the mess the western states are in. Now it's the US with low taxes and no health system and (mostly)
rubbish public schools vs. Europe.
Emma_85 wrote:Germany definitely overdid it with its welfare, so yes, too much is probably wrong. But Britain or Holland are doing fine.
Emma_85 wrote:The US is not doing too well at all. The dollar has fallen so much it's unbelievable and they have what 5% unemployment? Britain has 2.6%.
Emma_85 wrote:And saying that because the USSR fell that any other system borrowing a certain principle they used will fail... that's not really a valid argument.
Russia spent a lot of its money on its army, which was part of why it collapsed. The US spends a lot of its money on the army! Russia fell -> the US will fall, too!
Emma_85 wrote:In the communist countries you didn't have the principle: if you work hard you'll get paid. People just didn't turn up for work half the time or were sloppy at work, because they couldn't really loose their jobs.
Emma_85 wrote:And quality wasn't important, so the industry produced as much as it could, but did it really badly. That's what was wrong with the economy...
Emma_85 wrote:And benissimus, didn't I just explain the German system? You can at least try to keep bribes at a minimum and not make them normal.
Emma_85 wrote:Taxation is not fundamentally wrong and so we don't have to keep it at a minimum. But, if we do have a state like the US that does not provide all the services you need, then you have to keep taxation at a minimum, but in a welfare state you don't have to.
If here they raise the taxes you say: 'Oh dear, I'll have to wait until next year to buy a new TV.' How tragic!
But if you raise them in the US, some one might say: 'Oh no, I'll have to wait until next year for my operation/next doctor's check up.' Now that can really be tragic!
Emma_85 wrote:To argue that Tax is fundamentally wrong, because it's theft, you have to first convince me it's theft,
Emma_85 wrote:and second tell me why theft is morally wrong in all occasions, which I don't believe to be true.
Emma_85 wrote:I do know what I'm talking about, Lex. I've studied communism and Russian history and economics. I also vote green/communist in case you were wondering, so I think we'll never get on in policts (I already said this a few pages ago, before the discussion started, because you said 'socialist rubbish' or something like that).
Emma_85 wrote:a sims game
Lex wrote: Another thing I just thought of, instead of talking in abstract terms about "taxation" and "societies" and "democracy", let's make it more real. Let's say you, bingley and I were hanging out in real life. It comes up in conversation that my brother is a crackhead, and he is having a real bad time right now. He lost his job because he's such a loser, and he can't make the rent. So you, bingley and I vote on whether to take the contents of your purse and give it to my brother as charity. Unfortunately for you, bingley and I both think that giving your money to my brother would be a swell idea, so you lose the vote. So we tell you that we think that you should give us the money, and if you don't, well, we will lock you in my basement for a few years until you see the light. Would that be "taxation", which is OK because the decision was arrived at "democratically", and was intended to help a person who was "in need"? Or would it be theft, pure and simple?
Ptolemaios wrote:It may just be a detail, but the immorality of your story lies, I think, mostly in the fact that only one of you three would have to pay.
Ptolemaios wrote:I also object to your use of the word 'fascist'; IMHO again, this has the connotation of willingness to murder people. How vehemently the discussion here may be, and how much the opinions may differ, I'm quite sure no one here would go as far as killing an opponent.
Emma_85 wrote:The problem with your example, which is why I didn't bother to answer it, was that it was a very, very over simplified and well... wrong example for explaining the workings of a welfare state.
Emma_85 wrote:Those who have more money, pay to help those who have less, knowing that if they themselves end up in such a situation they too will recieve that help.
Emma_85 wrote:I ... must.... not ... be .... tempted.... to.... start... another .... debate....
arghh... it's just so difficult not to...
Emma_85 wrote:I've lost my Nietzsche Texts (Antichrist and some other one, which would be quite helpful in this debate, as you seem to take sides with Nietzsche on the subject of compassion.
Emma_85 wrote:Lol, well I’ll start with explaining Marxist theory and it’s big fault (which is not in economics, but in humans). Not saying that doesn’t make the fault less of a fault, it’s still a flawed theory, and Marx should have known better, but it’s just so not anything to do with the economics.
Emma_85 wrote:Mit der Besitzergreifung der Produktionsmittle durch die Gesellschaft (that is that not that the state should take over the companies, but with Gesellschaft he means the people, the workers. Marx knew that otherwise you would just end up with a new upper class)
Emma_85 wrote:here he means that it’s not us, who decide what we buy, but the producers. We don’t have a choice is what he says. Now this is important to understand, this is where he sees that the people of the middle classes are in fact in chains, even though they are golden ones, because they just think they are free to choose, but in fact they aren’t.
Emma_85 wrote:Ok, I can choose where I buy my crisps from one company or the other, but well... think about it, what sort of choice is that, and why do I buy crisps anyway?
Emma_85 wrote:So in capitalism you produce things we don’t need, but must buy, and in socialism we only produce what we need.)
Emma_85 wrote:Die Anarchie (here he means the unorganised economy, (and you can’t deny that it’s totally unorganised now, can you), and the economic cycles))
Emma_85 wrote:we think that the laws of economics have to apply and that they are like natural laws not things humans can make, but that isn’t true, which just goes to show how much we are people of our time and of this system.
Emma_85 wrote:in Marxist theory every one should earn the same amount of money.
Emma_85 wrote:Just because you're intelligent and therefore have a better job does not mean you are entitled to more pay.
Emma_85 wrote:The fact that you are allowed to do a fun job (well more fun that shovelling coal for example) is a big enough bonus in itself sort of, no need to reward you for having more fun than others.
Emma_85 wrote:Also people are voted into positions (like all the teachers are voted for by the parents and students and the directors by the workers) and can be voted out of their positions at any time, too.
Emma_85 wrote:The whole theory is regional. You only produce what you need in your town for example, there's nothing like the state really,
Emma_85 wrote:You would not have a new upper class, because you can vote them out of office straight away, Marx did think of that.
Emma_85 wrote:Of course you still have trade with other regions, Lex, saying something is regional does not exclude that...
Emma_85 wrote:Only die hard Marxist economics? I live near the University of Mannheim, which is the most important University that concentrates on economic studies in Germany, and know many people who are studying there and they all tell me that's what their professors say.
Users browsing this forum: calvinist and 18 guests