Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

So you are not completely against socialism (socialism as you defined it earlier), and you do think that the government should tax in order to do what is best for society, like maintain a police force and higher education.

As Mr. Power noted, many believe basic property protection by the government is a requirement for capitalism and not a socialistic measure.
I would agree with that. Though admitted, it is a kind of socialism. So yes, you could say I'm not completely opposed to all socialism.
In some areas I can be quite a socialist, as I explained earlier.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Where do you draw this generalization from?

Only personal observation. A person not wanting a strong military and supporting collectivism often go along.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You mention the social contract: is there no room in the social contract for the government to tax citizens for the good of society?[/COLOR]

Yes, but everybody at the same rate. Or with a consumption tax.

[xris]

So at what rate would you set this tax? You would obviously have to put the rate of tax up by a very large amount to compensate for the very high earners paying so much less.How would your teachers and low paid highly educated research workers think of your action?If you place it on purchases,how do you think the luxury product industry would view your massive increases?The very low paid who are on subsistence wages, how long do you think it will take before they voted in a more extreme government who saw their needs in more inviting light?
You have observed socialists military objections? was that the communists or the Nazis..Have you ever read about the Spanish civil war or the left wing rebel movements in south America.Who have you observed?

[EmperorNero]

xris, in the end, you can still have the opinion that the benefits of socialism are worth the detriments. That is up to everyones opinion.
But there are a few facts, mainly those fut forward by Mr. Fight the Power throughout this thread, that are simply a reality. You can argue the scale of their negative effects, but entirely denying them is simply factually incorrect.
When you acknowledge those, it would not have to change your conclusion to support socialism. Here we go, please come with counter-arguments.

Progressive taxing is creating a disincentive for productivity. It is like telling your child it gets 10$ for every F, 6$ for every E, 4$ for every D, 2$ for every C, nothing for every B, and a slap for every A.

Unless you offer an alternative definition of socialism, the nazis and soviets were a extreme brand of socialists. So were china and north korea. Which does of course does not mean that all socialism is bad.

The term communism does either describe extreme socialism, or a theory favoring common ownership instead of state ownership that according to communists themselves has never existed.

Forcedly taking someones money is immoral. That can be justified, but the action itself is still immoral.

I strongly believe that the disasters of capitalism are caused by interruptions from collectivism, not the flaw or contradiction of capitalism.

Only looking at the fact that a product in a capitalist market economy is distributed with greed instead of moral consideration, and therefore concluding that capitalism is immoral, is leaving out that greed is the reason there is a product in the first place.

*

Now to answer your last post. I would appreciate if you would try to poke holes...

Originally Posted by xris

So at what rate would you set this tax?

A flat tax rate would at first be calculated to fit demand of government income. It can even change every year. Note, that a simple tax code would completely eliminate the loop holes for the rich.

Originally Posted by xris

You would obviously have to put the rate of tax up by a very large amount to compensate for the very high earners paying so much less.

In my ideal scenario, government would be reduced in a degree that would require so little government income that everybody would pay less taxes than they do now.
We would still be able to have a compassionate society with education, order and security.

Originally Posted by xris

How would your teachers and low paid highly educated research workers think of your action?

Low income can be exempted from taxation until a certain income.

Originally Posted by xris

If you place it on purchases,how do you think the luxury product industry would view your massive increases?

A consumption tax is a whole thread for itself. Google FairTax, or see here.
There is more consumption tax, but you keep your entire paycheck. And it only applies to new products, so saving the environment through reselling products instead of buying new ones would be rewarded. And it would tax the rich more than the poor, as they are the ones purchasing new products. There can be a few rates, for example one for necessities, a "normal" one and a higher one one for luxuries.
Also note, that drug dealers and criminals would pay taxes like anybody else.

Originally Posted by xris

You have observed socialists military objections? was that the communists or the Nazis.

You are right. Socialists can be quite militaristic on a world history scale.
What I meant was within our own politics. The people being in favor of socialism are usually the ones not favoring a strong military. For example Democrats and/or liberals. Another example are european nations - they are socialistic and have little military.

And a note on your comments about me seeing George W. Bush as a ideal Republican president. My biggest disagreement with Bush was, that he was a big spending socialist. Call me a Republican (with both a small and a big 'R') or a Bush-lover. But doing so because I dislike socialism, is a bit as if you call me a dirty punk-rocker for listening to classical music.

[xris]

I think the socialism you assume i support and the actual one are totally different. i don't believe in complete state ownership only essential supplies, where a monopoly would be the result otherwise.Every government taxes and if you are saying there would be cut of point where tax would not be taken?that's exactly what i have been proposing and is normal in a socialist ideology.
I have many socialist friends like me who run their own businesses, its not exclusive to capitalisms.
I could never live under repressive regime such as we have seen in the old communist USSR but then i could not live in the right wing dictatorship they have now.
I think you are misled by the extreme expressions of certain socialist than the ideology of moderate social animals like me.thanks xris

[EmperorNero]

Alright, xris. I agree. Socialism is a matter of degree, and we both want to limit it.
If there is a socialism scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is anarchism and 10 is total state ownership; you maybe want something
around 6, while I want 2. As it is about degree, neither extreme is a good counter-argument.

Originally Posted by xris

I think you are misled by the extreme expressions of certain socialist than the ideology of moderate social animals like me.

No. Socialism is different from being social.
One is a political ideology, the other is a personal attribute.
They are as different as islam and islamism.

[xris]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

Alright, xris. I agree. Socialism is a matter of degree, and we both want to limit it.
If there is a socialism scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is anarchism and 10 is total state ownership; you maybe want something
around 6, while I want 2. As it is about degree, neither extreme is a good counter-argument.



No. Socialism is different from being social.
One is a political ideology, the other is a personal attribute.
They are as different as islam and islamism.

If you read the history of socialism in the uk it came from a necessity to be socially conscious of your fellow humans plight.For my fathers it was also necessity, when your family has suffered under a system that only ever favoured the rich.Your attitudes are finely tuned to being a social, not friendly, animal, a socialist.State ownership was the original claim of many who wore that flag but like many concepts it has moved on.It is now restricted to certain vital community needs like health, education, transport and the utilities.Even these demands have been left by certain socialist but not by me.I am no where near you on the political scale but a million miles away from communism.
I will fight for the right for you to disagree with me,so nothing like a commi or nazis.

[EmperorNero]

I think we a nearing some point of understanding.

Maybe state ownership is to narrow a expression, lets call it government objective. What I mean is that the government is taking over the transportation system instead of leaving it in the hands of the free market. That is socialism in that the government is "delivering" a service instead of the free market.

Note also, that my main point was that there should be no unequal taxing.

[xris]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

I think we a nearing some point of understanding.

Maybe state ownership is to narrow a expression, lets call it government objective. What I mean is that the government is taking over the transportation system instead of leaving it in the hands of the free market. That is socialism in that the government is "delivering" a service instead of the free market.

Note also, that my main point was that there should be no unequal taxing.

Unequal taxing is not the reserve of socialists.If you take it to its limits! if the rich man spends his money wisely it is well spent, if he spends it on frivolity it is wasted.Its his right but so are the rights of the poor who stand and watch his stupidity.Would you stand and watch a man starve while a rich man threw a bone to his dog? Good government have that responsibility to control the inequality of man and his greed.Its not control of wealth for the power of it but the justice of it.If you could convince me your system protected the poor then i would be happy to agree with you.

[EmperorNero]

I agree, progressive taxing is to my knowledge not a socialistic notion.

Originally Posted by xris

If you could convince me your system protected the poor then i would be happy to agree with you.

Convince... I don't know. It takes somewhat more thinking outside of the box to grasp this complex notion than the good old greed is bad equation. No offense.
I believe as long as we offer equality of opportunity, being poor is not something that happens to you. The potential of being poor is the greatest incentive for productivity we can offer as a society. And once we start offering incentives for not being productive, we hurt society as a whole because we restrict progress.
Sure, some rich have unfair advantages. But leveling the playing field not really have much to do with taking someones money and giving it to others. Especially since that mostly applies to those, that were poor themselves, and became rich through ability and effort.

[xris]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

I agree, progressive taxing is to my knowledge not a socialistic notion.

Convince... I don't know. It takes somewhat more thinking outside of the box to grasp this complex notion than the good old greed is bad equation. No offense.
I believe as long as we offer equality of opportunity, being poor is not something that happens to you. The potential of being poor is the greatest incentive for productivity we can offer as a society. And once we start offering incentives for not being productive, we hurt society as a whole because we restrict progress.
Sure, some rich have unfair advantages. But leveling the playing field not really have much to do with taking someones money and giving it to others. Especially since that mostly applies to those, that were poor themselves, and became rich through ability and effort.

In any society by nature or by nature we have those who succeed more than others and by the size of plate it means some have more than others.We are not like the cuckoo in the nest pushing out our fellow nestlings for more and more.
Ive seen the greed, it is real, it is not for some altruistic reason they gather more and more.Some are blatantly using their wealth for power and then more wealth.I dont deny their ability but only that government be empowered to take from the rich to help the poor.