Workable Socialism

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A fascinating question.  There are contradictory ideas at play.  

The State has the power to ignore individual rights, but without the State

So much for our God given rights then…..

Again, this is all about dogma, and our collective inability to break from it.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Abundance, Scot. That should be the dream. We’re fixated on property because it’s still a new idea. But we can evolve beyond it.

That sounds dangerous.  Is unlimited “abundance” possible?  Wouldn’t unlimited abundance prompt unlimited growth, as well?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

So much for our God given rights then…..

Again, this is all about dogma, and our collective inability to break from it.  

I’m not claiming “God given rights” though I believe they exist.  I recognize the importance of the State in the existence of individual liberties.

[Br16]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So the rich are visionaries and the poor are lazy? Funny, my dad is a lazy ex coke and heroin addict, and yet he’s rich AF. I just got a $10,000 check from him I need to deposit. I get one every few months. I’m pretty lazy too, all things considered. You plebs need to wake the hell up. I was born into three country clubs, and trust me, they’re all laughing at you.

You're joking. But if you aren't, then leisure is your right. One of your ancestors made it, and he wanted to pass it down, then so be it.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Br16 said:

You're joking. But if you aren't, then leisure is your right. One of your ancestors made it, and he wanted to pass it down, then so be it.

Most inherited wealth in this country has its roots in some pretty unsavory practices that likely included a lot of violence and coercion.  I assume your okay with me just taking some of that frim say, someone like Tywin, to give to my descendants?  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That sounds dangerous.  Is unlimited “abundance” possible?  Wouldn’t unlimited abundance prompt unlimited growth, as well?

Of course it is. And in this view of unlimited growth, poverty would cease to exist.  

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not claiming “God given rights” though I believe they exist.  I recognize the importance of the State in the existence of individual liberties.

Whose God? Which one gave us rights? There are so many to keep track of. I hope you’re not referencing that one who got tricked by a clueless woman and a talking snake….

And if you recognize it’s the state and not God that really gives us rights, were the Founding Fathers then not full of s**t? Those wise slave owners couldn’t have made mistakes, could they?  

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If food and clothing are considered basic human needs and people are not allowed to profit from others “needs” why should the State (or the People if you prefer) allow individuals or groups of individuals to profit from those needs?  

If profit from basic human needs is immoral in your view then this does seem binary to me.  You are allowing that profit to continue if you allow individuals or groups of individuals to profit from their abilities to produce better food or better clothing and demanding profitable remuneration for their efforts.  

Why shouldn’t the State bar these efforts if such profitable remuneration is wrong?

I guess my ultimate question is whether you believe any and all profit is wrong?  Or, is there a level of profit that is acceptable for human effort?

Because Scot, you're talking about two different things. If I am provided clothes for work and life (kind of like the military), then fine. But if I have money, why can't I buy clothes that I like? You seem to think it's all or nothing. Hell, most countries with socialized medicine still have private insurance. You're arguing something that no one here is arguing. If we provided homes and clothes for, say, the homeless (or clothes for families struggling to dress their children) that does nothing to stop us from buying more. In fact, provides many people with discretionary income. Salt Lake City almost eradicated homelessness by providing homes before the funding was suddenly cut. They had huge success with their program. And it didn't take away the private housing (or clothing) market to provide those in need with these things.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Of course it is. And in this view of unlimited growth, poverty would cease to exist.  

Whose God? Which one gave us rights? There are so many to keep track of. I hope you’re not referencing that one who got tricked by a clueless woman and a talking snake….

And if you recognize it’s the state and not God that really gives us rights, were the Founding Fathers then not full of s**t? Those wise slave owners couldn’t have made mistakes, could they?  

I’ve stated my beliefs.  I have no desire to impose those beliefs on anyone else, therefore, for practical purposes rights flow from the State and a reasonably strong state is necessary for individual liberties to exist.  

I do not and have never worshiped at the altar of the “Founding Fathers”.  They were as failible and weak as anyone else.  That doesn’t mean I don’t value the protection of your individual liberties they saw as part of the proper role of the State.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Br16 said:

You're joking. But if you aren't, then leisure is your right. One of your ancestors made it, and he wanted to pass it down, then so be it.

Oh I’m deadly serious. And your mentality is what is allow this rot to become worse.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Because Scot, you're talking about two different things. If I am provided clothes for work and life (kind of like the military), then fine. But if I have money, why can't I buy clothes that I like? You seem to think it's all or nothing. Hell, most countries with socialized medicine still have private insurance. You're arguing something that no one here is arguing. If we provided homes and clothes for, say, the homeless (or clothes for families struggling to dress their children) that does nothing to stop us from buying more. In fact, provides many people with discretionary income. Salt Lake City almost eradicated homelessness by providing homes before the funding was suddenly cut. They had huge success with their program. And it didn't take away the private housing (or clothing) market to provide those in need with these things.

Great.  That still doesn’t answer my question.  I freely accept that hybrid systems can and do work.  

Let me make sure I understand your point.  You are saying the State should supply “basic” and other stuff should be available if people want to go above and beyond “basic” they can if they want to?

You don’t see those providing stuff in excess of “basic” as immoral because they are profiting from human need, because, with “basic” that human need has already been provided for?

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Br16 said:

Yeah, I got that question too. 

I mean, if there isn't enough profit, those making basic human needs may make less (or quit) and then our needs won't be met because of supply shortage. 

Off course, if we are talking about behavior such as East India Company officials abusing Company Rule powers to seize grain and sell it back at famine prices, then that's certainly bad. But most producers don't have power like that to abuse. 

You understand that those who actually make the shit don't see any of the profit right? Like by definition in order for their to be a profit the one that makes the thing, IE adds value to it, must make less than the difference between what the material cost and what the end product sells for. There need be no profit at all for those who make the given thing to get paid well. Indeed eliminating profit may see the workers actually make more, as instead of going to someone else the worker keeps the full value of what they produce.

1 hour ago, Br16 said:

The heirs had ancestors who took the risk and established a business. They had vision, and put down time, effort, and capital and it grew. It could have gone south and if it did, their homes would look like a field hands. But it didn't, and if the successful ancestors wanted to pass down the fruit of their success and risk taking, they have that right.

Even assuming that's true (it largely isn't) who cares if their ancestors took risks? They don't actually have the right to pass on their wealth. Nowhere is that a stated to be a right. Besides, the fucking guy picking the Tomatoes is taking more of a risk now, so we don't we reward him?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ve stated my beliefs.  I have no desire to impose those beliefs on anyone else, therefore, for practical purposes rights flow from the State and a reasonably strong state is necessary for individual liberties to exist.  

I do not and have never worshiped at the altar of the “Founding Fathers”.  They were as failible and weak as anyone else.  That doesn’t mean I don’t value the protection of your individual liberties they saw as part of the proper role of the State.  

As a white male from a land owning family, my liberties were well covered. Were @Jace, Basilissa's?

[TrueMetis]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

As a white male from a land owning family, my liberties were well covered. Were @Jace, Basilissa's?

I mean as a white male from a land owning family you're liberties are the only ones they cared about.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

As a white male from a land owning family, my liberties were well covered. Were @Jace, Basilissa's?

Not at the time, no.  However, with the application of the 14th Amendment everyone’s individual liberties should be protected by law.  

Has that always been perfectly true, no.  Is it perfectly true today, no.  Will it ever be perfectly true, no.  We’re dealing with humans.  We’re all flawed, biased, prejudiced, subject to allowing our emotions override our rationality.  We do the best that we can, hopefully, without shooting one another.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Not at the time, no.  However, with the application of the 14th Amendment everyone’s individual liberties should be protected by law.  

If you have money, sure. If not, good luck.

Quote

Has that always been perfectly true, no.  Is it perfectly true today, no.  Will it ever be perfectly true, no.  We’re dealing with humans.  We’re all flawed, biased, prejudiced, subject to allowing our emotions override our rationality.  We do the best that we can, hopefully, without shooting one another.

Scot, the large point I’m making is that our society is a lie stacked on another lie times infinity. Once you accept that, it’s a lot easier to see other systems of governments with clearer eyes. America could use a healthy dose of socialism mixed with the destruction of the 1%, and I say that knowing that I would be among those that would have to give up some of my wealth and privilege.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you have money, sure. If not, good luck.

Scot, the large point I’m making is that our society is a lie stacked on another lie times infinity. Once you accept that, it’s a lot easier to see other systems of governments with clearer eyes. America could use a healthy dose of socialism mixed with the destruction of the 1%, and I say that knowing that I would be among those that would have to give up some of my wealth and privilege.

Define “destruction”.  Are you advocating killing these folks a la the Terror during the French Revolution?  That got a tad out of hand, wouldn’t you say?

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

We’re fixated on property because it’s still a new idea.

I haven't been following this thread much, but what?  Property is not a new idea.  Unless your scale is, like, the existence of earth.  Property, and even private property, as a concept has been around for a very very long time.  That's why Locke was so into it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Define “destruction”.  Are you advocating killing these folks a la the Terror during the French Revolution?  That got a tad out of hand, wouldn’t you say?

Is that not the inevitable endgame of vast inequality? But no, not that. For starters, no more billionaires and established floors and ceilings of wealth. That would be a good start.

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

As a white male from a land owning family, my liberties were well covered. Were @Jace, Basilissa's?

Well if we are being fair, there would likely be bi-partisan support for reducing Jace's liberties. Some things are just in the public's interest.

But I don't want to spoil the wars to come!

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Define “destruction”.  Are you advocating killing these folks a la the Terror during the French Revolution?  

Are you trying to get me to dance? I've learned to dance, Scott. You wouldn't like me when I'm dancing. 

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Well if we are being fair, there would likely be bi-partisan support for reducing Jace's liberties. Some things are just in the public's interest.

Jace Rights are Human Rights!