Socialists seem to believe that successful people have a duty to support the less fortunate. Isn't this the same kind of person who would break into homes of the wealthy and rob them? I personally think that it's in societies best interest to criminalize this philosophy and to put these kinds of individuals in prison.
Do you agree?
If not, aren't you concerned about the fruits of your labor being taken from you?
For starters, socialism is a system of government, which can't really be illegal. People who support a socialist government have a right to vote for socialist politicians, since that's how elections work.
Most socialists wouldn't literally rob the rich to support the poor. That's kind of like saying a capitalist would rob the poor and give to the rich and then say "the rich obviously worked hard to get what they have, they deserve to have this stuff, too".
Also: Robin Hood is always the hero in his story. He is a thief, but people want him to win because he's supporting the hardworking but poor peasants and the people he's stealing from have more than enough already.
Overall, not every poor person is poor because they're lazy, and not every rich person got that way through hard work.
I kindasorta have a feeling this is a troll thread.
Socialists seem to believe that successful people have a duty to support the less fortunate. Isn't this the same kind of person who would break into homes of the wealthy and rob them? I personally think that it's in societies best interest to criminalize this philosophy and to put these kinds of individuals in prison.
Do you agree?
If not, aren't you concerned about the fruits of your labor being taken from you?
People supporting the death penalty seem to believe that some criminals should be murdered. Isn't this the same kind of person who would break into the houses of people they think have done a crime and murder them? I personally think that it's in society's best interest to criminalize this philosophy and to put these kinds of individuals in prison.
Do you agree?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
What do you have against helping your fellow man? All people have their own skills that add value to society, just because our artificial constructs have made certain skills more valued than others does not give us the right to denied our fellow human basic needs. Would not anyone who thinks their own personal wealth, is more important than the unity of our race, be robbing the future from our children? Would it not be in our races best interest to remove such people from our population to ensure our unity and salvation?
Let me preface this: I'm a libertarian. I think socialism is bad policy because it fails to take into account the fact that human beings respond to economic incentives. You create bad incentives when you make it less profitable to work hard and take economic risks (by imposing high taxes) and you make it more profitable to work less or not at all (by providing more free and subsidized government services). This creates a one-two punch of bad results: (1) your country lags behind in innovation and economic growth because you have fewer entrepreneurs and fewer man-hours of labor available; and (2) this causes tax revenues to fall and makes your socialist system harder to sustain.
With that out of the way, this idea that socialism amounts to theft or that we should criminalize a political philosophy is absolutely poisonous and antithetical to whatever progress you're trying to make. First off, wantng to criminalize an opposing viewpoint is basically a concession that your ideas can't stand up to theirs in an open debate. If socialism is a bad idea (and I think it is) then it should ultimately lose out in the marketplace of ideas. Criminalizing or banning certain political perspectives is the hallmark of totalitarian governments. Whatever you may think of socialism, totalitarianism is worse.
Second, some amount of "redistribution" or taxation is inevitable in any functioning government. Public roads, for example, are more efficient than a private system of competing toll roads. The wasted infrastructure cost exceeds whatever efficiency benefits you get from privatization. The same is true for things like the court system, the police, firefighters, prisons, and military. You really don't want to privatize those things. So you inevitably will get some amount of forced contribution to these services. The idea that this is theft is ludicrous. It's the price of living in a functioning society. Some taxes and programs are bad, and we should recognize them as bad and try to get rid of them, but arguing that all tax amounts to someone breaking into your home and stealing your things does a disservice to the argument by painting these issues with an unhelpfully broad brush.
I'm not sure if this thread is a troll or spam or what. But I'll suggest OP reads Nineteen Eighty-Four to see why thought isn't a crime in a democracy.
As an aside about Orwell, communists slamming the Soviet Union. Funny, that, but our resident Cold Warriors don't realize how much communists second-guessed each other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Why isn't capitalism a crime? In a completely free market, people use power (in the form of original ideas, business strategies, and money) to obtain more money (which is also power), from others. Why is this form of power more valid than, say, force of arms?
The most obviosu counter-argument is that the power to persuade in a market leaves the buyer with free will, whereas pointing a gun at someone doesn't give them any meaningful choice.
However.
The most extreme free-market advocates object to ANY regulation. One of the most problematic concepts to deal with here revolves around anti-trust. If company X uses superior financial power to corner the market on a product, say Oil, that is vital to lif, it then obtains a similar power to force of arms- the ability to deny consumers meaningful choice. They cannot make the meaningful choice not to deal with company X, as the product they sell is vital to modern life. Oil may be an outdated example, so if you're having an issue that that, substitute Food.
When you follow this line of thought, it becomes rapidly apparent that some level of regulation is required for a free market to operate fairly.
Anti-Trust regulation IS a redistribution of wealth and power. Without it, the strongest actor in any given field will, inevitably, control the entire field if operating under typical capitalistc principles. Eventually, a monolithic entity must be broken up and it's wealth (resources) and power resdistributed among other smaller actors in order for the system to function fairly.
This is the essence of socialism. People have basic rights, and a lack of ability, or even drive and motivation, is not sufficient to deny them of those rights. An examination of the values of free-market capitalists vs. socialists eventually boils down to what those basic rights are. Socialists belive that things like medical care, housing, and a basic standard of living are fundamental human rights, and therefore it is the responsibility fo society to provide those thigns to people who are unable, or yes even unwilling, to provide them for themselves. Free-market capitalists generally believe that these things will be better provided by private interests (charities, including churches) and private donors. They object to being "forced" to provide these basic right for their fellows by the government. A few radicals believe that these are not basic rights at all, and that people who refuse to work or are unable to work can be left without food or shelter, without introducing any moral quadaries. Among educated capitalists, these people are fee, far between, and are the equivalent of Jihadists or the Westboro Baptist Church. too often socialists portray capitalists as unfeeling and uncaring. This is wrong and misses the point.
A socialist like myself believes that privae interests will never be sufficient, and that the government, as the representative of the people and the embodiment of society, should fullfill the obligations of the people and society. If, as a society, we accept that we cannot allow people to starve, to go without shelter and the basic requirements of living, then we, as a society, have to act to prevent such thigns from happening. The Government is our vehicle for acting together as a whole society. We cannot rely on a small subset of society (private interests, charities, the Churches, etc...) to fullfill our obligations - we must do so collectively.
It then becomes a matter of how to do so fairly and effectively. Socialists believe that people with greater ability have greater responsibility. Capitalists believe that everyone shares equal responsbility.
I am a socialist because I recognize that people are not equal. People have equal rights, but people do not have equal abilities, and therefore do not have equal responsibilities. To illustrate, let's say in a public area a woman is being mugged by a man with a small knife. Three people are walking by and see the mugging: an elderly person with a walker, an athlete in their early 20's, and a 10 year speical forces vetern with advanced combat training who is current armed with a loaded gun and is still in prime physical condition. Most people would agree that the elder has no responsibility to personally intervene in the mugging - the elder only places themself in danger by doing so and is unlikely to make much of an impact. People might be divided on the athlete- sure that person is in good physical condition and might be able to offer some real help, but on the other hand they do put themself at risk by intervening. Almost everyone would agree it would be a noble thing to do, but there would be much dissent about weather or not it's an obligation. Finally, I think most people would agree that the armed speical forces vet has an obligation here - this person is clearly capable of helping and, given the armament and training this person has, they are unlikey to face a significant risk by doing so. There are some people who belive that none of the three has any responsibility to act.
In an economic situation, the woman being mugged is replaced by a person with a part-time, minimum wage job that is not sufficient to earn a living wage. The elder is someone who makes a living wage, but just gets by. They don't have the means to help the woman, and if they tried they would place themself in economic jeopardy. The athlete is a middle-class worker- yes, they potentially have the resources to help, but there is some risk exposure to doing so and contraversy over weather or not they should. The spec ops vet is a multi-millionaire- they have the resources to help without any real risk of loss to themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
@Killane: From a moral stand point (not a economical one) if a individual can work and have the opportunity to do so but refuses, it is wrong do deny this person the basic ?
For one side, it seems careless and unfeeling to let another human being rot but it's ambiguous as far as moral goes. After all, no one reasonable will blame you for passing your time here on MTGSalvation instead of working and giving money to poor people on the street. On the other hand, if you make help compulsory (morally or legally) you give people the choice to not do what they can do and still benefit from everyone else's efforts, which is surely a immoral action (not working out of your free will knowing other people will have to work extra hard for you IS immoral).
Your analogy doesn't hold to the fiscal matter (the matter of which is morally right or wrong to tribute and raise a welfare state). The living wage is not a good index in the sense it's name does not follow it's definition. The living wage is the wage needed to sustain a family with standards of living decided by policy makers. It's not actually the wage needed to stay alive.
If living wages were needed to stay alive and a significant amount of people were earning less then it, there wouldn't be poor people in the world eventually simply because they would die, which obviously is not what's happening. Socialist really have to admit what's in wager here. It's not people life, it's their comfort.
Socialist policy are not meant to keep people from dying on hunger, it's about giving then a desirable standard of living.
In my opinion the largest question to be addressed on this topic is how do we cross the line between people who can and people who cannot achieve this standard by then self. Only then we will know for certain how much of socialist policy is needed.
Policies focused on opportunities offers a good moral solution for this as they let people achieve the desirable standard without overburdening the others. The issue is efficiency: the fact that people just miss out on opportunities (public schools drop outs) or that opportunities are not so easy to be handled over like other service makes this line really hard to engage.
You are assuming that everyone who is capable of work can obtain work, which is very much not the case.
You are also stating that making less than a living wage still means someone can "live". While this may strictly be true, there are still huge, huge problems. These are people who may well starve to death without government intervention in the form of food stamps, school-provided meals, etc. These are people who resort to illegal means, be it theft, sale of drugs, or less obvious law-breakings like breaking housing code by putting too many people in a dwelling to be able to afford it. These are people who risk homelessness, or experience it, and are often only spared from it by government intervention.
These are people who cannot afford to save *anything* for the future, so when they are incapable of working (due to illness, injury, or age), they rely entirely on government intervention to survive.
Note how I keep saying government intervention? This is the same "socialism" that you are saying should be a crime.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
You are assuming that everyone who is capable of work can obtain work, which is very much not the case.
The unemployment statistics are composed of rotating people. If someone is more then a year looking for a job and find none the problem is not the job demand but this person job searching skills. Not to mention autonomous labor is a thing: you can always work by yourself by using simple skills such as gardening, cooking or carpentering. Now if you're adult, don't know how to search for a job or don't have any economically useful skills then you fall in the category of people who aren't capable of working.
The USA receives a massive amount of immigrants looking for nothing but better opportunities and the constant influx shows they find it. I wonder how people that came from places with worse educations can find jobs if there's such a structural job shortage there.
This whole linkage between crime and poverty is also fallacious. There's a correlation between the two - but the correlation exist because crime is relatively better opportunity the worse the other opportunities you get on a legal job. The image of this criminal who mugs to feed his hungry children is simply false.
Again, don't pretend the welfare system is meant to save people who cannot work and would suffer a lot otherwise. Punctual intervention - policies designed to help people in specific needs or extreme poverty, is NOT a characteristic of socialism. For example, a policy who rescue and reestablish people who suffered from hurricanes or floods or macroeconomic policy to help in a massive unemployment crisis are not what's socialism is about.
Modern democratic socialism is about the construction of a welfare state were all elected human rights are attended. It is desirable inside the system that everyone have access to housing, food, clothing, health, education, culture and entertainment. Everyone, even people who are not contributing enough to social product in order to pay for this. Even people who could contribute (the question is strongly rejected by most socialism, as they think it is unfair to judge if a people could or could not contribute).
The unemployment statistics are composed of rotating people. If someone is more then a year looking for a job and find none the problem is not the job demand but this person job searching skills. Not to mention autonomous labor is a thing: you can always work by yourself by using simple skills such as gardening, cooking or carpentering. Now if you're adult, don't know how to search for a job or don't have any economically useful skills then you fall in the category of people who aren't capable of working.
I see you've never heard of the term "overqualified" or the concept that businesses freely admit to not hiring people who have been out of work for 6 months. Or that businesses discriminate based on age, gender, or name. Or that hardly any businesses rely on reading resumes and cover letters anymore and instead rely on software algorithms to weed out applicants based on how many times they use the words that were in the posting (i.e. a human will never look at your resume). Or the fact that a good portion of hires are done with knowing someone within the organization rather than sending out a bunch of resumes. Or that gigs aren't a way for a sustainable income because it is a volatile way to make ends meet, plus it won't give you health insurance or get you to a doctor if you get injured on the job and need workers comp.
You are assuming that everyone who is capable of work can obtain work, which is very much not the case.
The unemployment statistics are composed of rotating people. If someone is more then a year looking for a job and find none the problem is not the job demand but this person job searching skills. Not to mention autonomous labor is a thing: you can always work by yourself by using simple skills such as gardening, cooking or carpentering. Now if you're adult, don't know how to search for a job or don't have any economically useful skills then you fall in the category of people who aren't capable of working.
Wow. Let's unpack this, shall we? First of all, this kind of reasoning is simply a way for people to shift blame. I'm working, and I'm a hard worker, therefore if you're not working you're lazy. But nothing in life is ever that simple.
Following on BatterysRevenge, it's a lot more complicated than simply finding a menial labor job. Business don't want to hire you if you're only going to work there until you find something better in a few months, and they assume everyone who isn't a simple laborer is looking for something else (and they're right, too). Ageism is a major problem, because companies don't want to invest in someone who is just going to retire in 10 years and expect a high salary when they can hire some fresh college grad instead.
Besides which, Gardening, Cooking and Carpentry aren't simple skills. For carpentry and cooking (beyond flipping burgers) at least, you need a fair amount of education and training, and going back to worry about someone leaving - why would an employer hire someone and invest in that training only to have them leave shortly after?
So people are largely relegated to their career path, and have to pray they don't get let go between 50 and 65.
God forbid you have children who can't take care of themselves yet, either. You better pray you have family willing to help out, because Mickey D's ain't paying for daycare.
Besides which, just 'finding a job' isn't adequate. If you've got a family to support and bills to pay, $11 an hour isn't going to cut it.
The USA receives a massive amount of immigrants looking for nothing but better opportunities and the constant influx shows they find it. I wonder how people that came from places with worse educations can find jobs if there's such a structural job shortage there.
Do you really not get the issue with that statement?
If you're talking illegal immigration, it's because employers can get away with paying them next to nothing.
If you're talking legal immigration, there are a wide array of issues here that maybe you don't get. Immigration in the United States requires a sponsor. If you've got a job, that sponsor would be your employer. Otherwise, it's usually going to be a family member or community member who is already set up in the United States. Those sponsors provides ongoing economic and logistical support and they often provide jobs. Why do you think so many immigrant-run business are staffed by family and friends? Because they provide support to their own communities.
This whole linkage between crime and poverty is also fallacious. There's a correlation between the two - but the correlation exist because crime is relatively better opportunity the worse the other opportunities you get on a legal job. The image of this criminal who mugs to feed his hungry children is simply false.
I'm not sure anyone is making a "Mugger with a heart of gold" connection here. The issue with crime is that it's self perpetuating in poor communities. In many areas in places like the inner city, there are all sorts of dangerous elements a kid can get caught up in, and there can be the allure of quick money when you're best work prospect is a minimum wage job. Problem is, you get a record and no one is going to hire you. So if you did something stupid while you're young, even after serving your time very few people will hire you (in many places you're required to mention you're a ex-con or on parole when applying for work)... which only leaves illegal methods of obtaining money available for many.
Again, don't pretend the welfare system is meant to save people who cannot work and would suffer a lot otherwise. Punctual intervention - policies designed to help people in specific needs or extreme poverty, is NOT a characteristic of socialism. For example, a policy who rescue and reestablish people who suffered from hurricanes or floods or macroeconomic policy to help in a massive unemployment crisis are not what's socialism is about.
In your own words, can you describe what you think the welfare system is? This is a serious question, because I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here - there are a LOT of programs that can be considered 'welfare', so I want to make sure.
Also, how do you think people are 'rescued and reestablished' from disasters? I work in emergency management and I'm curious as to how a lay person views it.
Modern democratic socialism is about the construction of a welfare state were all elected human rights are attended. It is desirable inside the system that everyone have access to housing, food, clothing, health, education, culture and entertainment. Everyone, even people who are not contributing enough to social product in order to pay for this. Even people who could contribute (the question is strongly rejected by most socialism, as they think it is unfair to judge if a people could or could not contribute).
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Can you try to rephrase it?
I see you've never heard of the term "overqualified" or the concept that businesses freely admit to not hiring people who have been out of work for 6 months. Or that businesses discriminate based on age, gender, or name. Or that hardly any businesses rely on reading resumes and cover letters anymore and instead rely on software algorithms to weed out applicants based on how many times they use the words that were in the posting (i.e. a human will never look at your resume). Or the fact that a good portion of hires are done with knowing someone within the organization rather than sending out a bunch of resumes. Or that gigs aren't a way for a sustainable income because it is a volatile way to make ends meet, plus it won't give you health insurance or get you to a doctor if you get injured on the job and need workers comp.
You clearly have no experience in HR or it must been a while since you haven't gone in a job interview. Only very, very competitive positions have this sort of selection, precisely because they are selecting hundreds candidates to one spot. And this is just one step, you still probably go for math/logic/compression tests, personal interview and tests in the specific area you're applying.
Feels like your idea of a job selection is the selection of a top engineer or programmer or high profile management. It's not like the majority of people are educated, experienced and smart enough to occupy this sort of spots anyway. There are many spots on areas that demands less from you and pay less, but enough to have a nice and happy life. It's just that the level of self entitlement of some people those days are across the board. It's like they are never satisfied, always wanting what others conquered.
Wow. Let's unpack this, shall we? First of all, this kind of reasoning is simply a way for people to shift blame. I'm working, and I'm a hard worker, therefore if you're not working you're lazy. But nothing in life is ever that simple.
Following on BatterysRevenge, it's a lot more complicated than simply finding a menial labor job. Business don't want to hire you if you're only going to work there until you find something better in a few months, and they assume everyone who isn't a simple laborer is looking for something else (and they're right, too). Ageism is a major problem, because companies don't want to invest in someone who is just going to retire in 10 years and expect a high salary when they can hire some fresh college grad instead.
Besides which, Gardening, Cooking and Carpentry aren't simple skills. For carpentry and cooking (beyond flipping burgers) at least, you need a fair amount of education and training, and going back to worry about someone leaving - why would an employer hire someone and invest in that training only to have them leave shortly after?
So people are largely relegated to their career path, and have to pray they don't get let go between 50 and 65.
God forbid you have children who can't take care of themselves yet, either. You better pray you have family willing to help out, because Mickey D's ain't paying for daycare.
Besides which, just 'finding a job' isn't adequate. If you've got a family to support and bills to pay, $11 an hour isn't going to cut it.
I didn't say you're lazy. I said you're either naturally not able to work or doing bad life choices. The first case deserves public attention, the second is questionable.
Business don't want is a overgeneralizing statement based on no real fact or statistics. The fact and statistic is the USA have a low unemployment rate and this unemployment rate is composed of rotating people. The share of the population who are really locked out of the labor market is minimal, so small they sometimes don't even appear on official statistics. Those cases are the exception, not the general state of the labor market in a capitalistic system. And devising public policies to help those isolated cases IS NOT socialism.
About gardening, cooking and carpentry. I know those are not simple, maybe that was a bad word I used to describe then. They are easy access in the sense you don't need formal training (money) in order to learn then. These are the kind of skills that you normally obtain by simply practicing in your free time or learning with your parents.
If you're talking illegal immigration, it's because employers can get away with paying them next to nothing.
If you're talking legal immigration, there are a wide array of issues here that maybe you don't get. Immigration in the United States requires a sponsor. If you've got a job, that sponsor would be your employer. Otherwise, it's usually going to be a family member or community member who is already set up in the United States. Those sponsors provides ongoing economic and logistical support and they often provide jobs. Why do you think so many immigrant-run business are staffed by family and friends? Because they provide support to their own communities.
I'm talking about both types of immigration.
Illegal one: They earn little but still is MUCH more what they gain in their respective countries and I'm not sure if you're familiar with third world countries but we actually don't constantly die or live a horrible life. I earn 1/3 of USA's minimal wage (purchase power adjusted) and I live a fine material life, in the sense I shouldn't be demanding public intervention in my favor.
Legal One: As you said people immigrates there when they have a job, so they could find a job there... from another country or even continent. And social capital / networking is indeed a factor in all this: reason it is easier for a native american to find a job there. You know, you're in your native country, you belong to the biggest and dominant community over there.
I think at this point the real issue is starting to show up. Which the younger generation is denying the paramount importance of family and community to their sustenance and wants to fill those holes with government care.
I'm not sure anyone is making a "Mugger with a heart of gold" connection here. The issue with crime is that it's self perpetuating in poor communities. In many areas in places like the inner city, there are all sorts of dangerous elements a kid can get caught up in, and there can be the allure of quick money when you're best work prospect is a minimum wage job. Problem is, you get a record and no one is going to hire you. So if you did something stupid while you're young, even after serving your time very few people will hire you (in many places you're required to mention you're a ex-con or on parole when applying for work)... which only leaves illegal methods of obtaining money available for many.
I actually agree with this. Reason why we need a policy to solve all this giant mess and the tendency is it getting out of hand. The more crime perpetuates in area, more it becomes something morally acceptable to people living there. Ten or more generations down the line we might be looking in something that could be local conflicts (aka mini civil wars). This conflict can be observed in countries where crime is more advanced (Brazil).
This is unfortunately how some areas developed and I believe public action to fix then is needed. But localized policy like that is not what's socialism is.
In your own words, can you describe what you think the welfare system is? This is a serious question, because I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here - there are a LOT of programs that can be considered 'welfare', so I want to make sure.
Also, how do you think people are 'rescued and reestablished' from disasters? I work in emergency management and I'm curious as to how a lay person views it.
The welfare social network is a institution that characterize social-democratic estates. The idea is to tax everyone (progressively most of the time) in order to sustain a wide array of public services that are permanent (they should be at disposal all times) and universal (should be at disposal to every citizen, no exception). Normally those services are far beyond social security and education, they include healthcare, housing, entertainment and clothing.
This kind of public policy is different from the specific interventions that are universally accepted by all sort of political schools (except the very radical ones). Specific Interventions includes aiding people who suffered from natural disasters, devising policy to solve specific social anomalies (such as the propagation of slums or helping people who are completely locked out of labor markets), helping people with difficult physical conditions, distributing food on food shortage crisis, fighting dangerous diseases and epidemics, etc...
The above is not considered as part of socialism or a true welfare state. Those policies is just public action solving specific problems that occasionally appear in every country. Socialism is about everyone sharing their earning so everyone may have a more comfortable life (in the presence or not of such anomalies).
It's a important distinction. A social-democracy would have, by law, that universal public education would be offered even if people actually have money to pay for it.
Look, I've researched this extensively while I was in undergrad. I was once a pretty big Republican and espoused a lot of the beliefs you are right now. But when I actually had to dig down into the research and the social realities of the job market, I started rethinking a lot of those beliefs.
Feels like your idea of a job selection is the selection of a top engineer or programmer or high profile management. It's not like the majority of people are educated, experienced and smart enough to occupy this sort of spots anyway. There are many spots on areas that demands less from you and pay less, but enough to have a nice and happy life. It's just that the level of self entitlement of some people those days are across the board. It's like they are never satisfied, always wanting what others conquered.
This is a bit of a strawman. These principles apply all across the middle class, not just some vague elite entity. Even a secretary who is laid off will have the same kinds of problems as a high-level manager.
I didn't say you're lazy. I said you're either naturally not able to work or doing bad life choices. The first case deserves public attention, the second is questionable.
This is a cop out. The only options out there aren't 'Working, Not able to work, or it's your own fault you're not working'.
Business don't want is a overgeneralizing statement based on no real fact or statistics. The fact and statistic is the USA have a low unemployment rate and this unemployment rate is composed of rotating people. The share of the population who are really locked out of the labor market is minimal, so small they sometimes don't even appear on official statistics. Those cases are the exception, not the general state of the labor market in a capitalistic system. And devising public policies to help those isolated cases IS NOT socialism.
You've got it backwards, a little bit here. First of all, there are a lot of reasons people rotate out of unemployment:
As for me 'overgeneralizing', this has actually been studied a lot. Here is just one example.
About gardening, cooking and carpentry. I know those are not simple, maybe that was a bad word I used to describe then. They are easy access in the sense you don't need formal training (money) in order to learn then. These are the kind of skills that you normally obtain by simply practicing in your free time or learning with your parents.
Wait, what? Have you ever tried to find a chef job? You need more than experience cooking with your family. And gardening with your parents is a little bit different than working for a landscaping company. All three of these things are jobs where you'll either need real previous experience (not just practicing at home) or you'll need some sort of on the job training.
Illegal one: They earn little but still is MUCH more what they gain in their respective countries and I'm not sure if you're familiar with third world countries but we actually don't constantly die or live a horrible life. I earn 1/3 of USA's minimal wage (purchase power adjusted) and I live a fine material life, in the sense I shouldn't be demanding public intervention in my favor.
Aren't you Brazilian? Cost of living there is 1/3rd of that in the US, so I'm not really sure how the comparison is accurate.
I think at this point the real issue is starting to show up. Which the younger generation is denying the paramount importance of family and community to their sustenance and wants to fill those holes with government care.
I actually don't deny this. Family has traditionally been the fall back plan for parents who are retiring or kids in need. In the US, we're way too quick to ditch our parents at a nursing home.
The welfare social network is a institution that characterize social-democratic estates. The idea is to tax everyone (progressively most of the time) in order to sustain a wide array of public services that are permanent (they should be at disposal all times) and universal (should be at disposal to every citizen, no exception). Normally those services are far beyond social security and education, they include healthcare, housing, entertainment and clothing.
I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here. Let's leave the what is socialism issues off to the side, because what I have issues with is your portrayal of the job market.
Socialists seem to believe that successful people have a duty to support the less fortunate. Isn't this the same kind of person who would break into homes of the wealthy and rob them? I personally think that it's in societies best interest to criminalize this philosophy and to put these kinds of individuals in prison.
Do you agree?
If not, aren't you concerned about the fruits of your labor being taken from you?
The replies so far are misleading you because you are right about one thing: socialists fully intend to confiscate (expropriate) the wealthy. Breaking into their homes is unnecessary because we will be taking that too.,
So let me rewrite the rest of your post about the philosophy the demands that rich be protected at all costs, no matter how many of the poor must be immiserated or starve and die as a result:
I personally think that it's in societies best interest to criminalize this philosophy and to put these kinds of individuals in prison.
If not, aren't you concerned about the pittance the rich allot you now being taken from you?
The replies so far are misleading you because you are right about one thing: socialists fully intend to confiscate (expropriate) the wealthy. Breaking into their homes is unnecessary because we will be taking that too.
Wow. Okay. You know, it usually does devolve to this (and it always ends so well too), but if you're advocating it from the outset you need to pay more attention not just to the lessons of history but to your own ideologues. Socialism isn't about the brute redistribution of wealth - that just tends to destroy the wealth in the long run, like any other form of rampant theft, and most socialist thinkers seem to realize this. Rather, it's about the common ownership of the means of production. Now, I still think there are huge problems with this theory, to do with the inefficiencies of centralized economic planning, but at least it's a hell of a lot more sensible than "take all their stuff".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The replies so far are misleading you because you are right about one thing: socialists fully intend to confiscate (expropriate) the wealthy. Breaking into their homes is unnecessary because we will be taking that too.
Wow. Okay. You know, it usually does devolve to this (and it always ends so well too), but if you're advocating it from the outset you need to pay more attention not just to the lessons of history but to your own ideologues. Socialism isn't about the brute redistribution of wealth - that just tends to destroy the wealth in the long run, like any other form of rampant theft, and most socialist thinkers seem to realize this. Rather, it's about the common ownership of the means of production. Now, I still think there are huge problems with this theory, to do with the inefficiencies of centralized economic planning, but at least it's a hell of a lot more sensible than "take all their stuff".
You have not presented an argument,only a catechism. Mostly you have shared your "thoughts" which passively reflect the prejudices of the day without adding anything to the discussion.
If you wish to have a conversation in shorthand -- speaking only in banalities and turns of a phrase -- let me accommodate you. I will see your "seize the means of production" and raise you "expropriate the expropriators" and "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
In your vulgarized explanation, "brute distribution of wealth" is the vulgarity. Have you thought this through (this is rhetorical as it is already understood that you have not)? Are you going to let the rich keep their bank accounts? Their mansions and private estates (which will continue to be privately maintained?)? Perhaps there is some gray area on precisely where the is drawn between petty possessions but that does not make the matter ambiguous.
Was the Civil War against the White Russians a mistaken battle for "brute redistribution of wealth"? What about the de facto fascist KMT? If Guevera had caught Batista would you seriously claim he should have been allowed to keep his personal fortune? (The same fortune he quickly spirited away, not-so-incidentally). None of those are legitimate questions because the answers are obvious. Give them an inch and you do nothing but sound the death knell of the revolution and sign your own death warrant.
Its also worth noting that Marx wrote about the (re)distribution of the wealth of society in one of his last (ie "mature") significant writings, Critique of the Gotha Program. This is his response in a letter to the draft of the program that would eventually serve as a platform/foundation for the German SPD. Here is where he invokes such phrases as "from each..to each.." Are you familiar with what Marx says here? (this also requires more than a passing familiarity with the time period, Lasalle, the unification of the parties, and etc).
The replies so far are misleading you because you are right about one thing: socialists fully intend to confiscate (expropriate) the wealthy. Breaking into their homes is unnecessary because we will be taking that too.
Wow. Okay. You know, it usually does devolve to this (and it always ends so well too), but if you're advocating it from the outset you need to pay more attention not just to the lessons of history but to your own ideologues. Socialism isn't about the brute redistribution of wealth - that just tends to destroy the wealth in the long run, like any other form of rampant theft, and most socialist thinkers seem to realize this. Rather, it's about the common ownership of the means of production. Now, I still think there are huge problems with this theory, to do with the inefficiencies of centralized economic planning, but at least it's a hell of a lot more sensible than "take all their stuff".
You have not presented an argument,only a catechism. Mostly you have shared your "thoughts" which passively reflect the prejudices of the day without adding anything to the discussion.
If you wish to have a conversation in shorthand -- speaking only in banalities and turns of a phrase -- let me accommodate you. I will see your "seize the means of production" and raise you "expropriate the expropriators" and "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
In your vulgarized explanation, "brute distribution of wealth" is the vulgarity. Have you thought this through (this is rhetorical as it is already understood that you have not)? Are you going to let the rich keep their bank accounts? Their mansions and private estates (which will continue to be privately maintained?)? Perhaps there is some gray area on precisely where the is drawn between petty possessions but that does not make the matter ambiguous.
Was the Civil War against the White Russians a mistaken battle for "brute redistribution of wealth"? What about the de facto fascist KMT? If Guevera had caught Batista would you seriously claim he should have been allowed to keep his personal fortune? (The same fortune he quickly spirited away, not-so-incidentally). None of those are legitimate questions because the answers are obvious. Give them an inch and you do nothing but sound the death knell of the revolution and sign your own death warrant.
Its also worth noting that Marx wrote about the (re)distribution of the wealth of society in one of his last (ie "mature") significant writings, Critique of the Gotha Program. This is his response in a letter to the draft of the program that would eventually serve as a platform/foundation for the German SPD. Here is where he invokes such phrases as "from each..to each..). Are you familiar with what Marx says here? (this also requires more than a passing familiarity with the time period, Lasalle, the unification of the parties, and etc).
And this post, friends, is why socialism doesn't need to be a crime. No one reading this torrent of slogans and name dropping is coming away convinced we should lift up our pitchforks and plunder the bourgeois. Extremism like this can't compete in the marketplace of ideas because it's devoid of logical support.
Whoever coined the phrase "marketplace of ideas" was just trolling fools like yourself to see if you were actually servile and/or stupid enough to add it to your 'lexicon'.
The simple truth is that you are wrong on every point. Socialism is a crime in bourgeois society and there has been over 100 years of proof that Marxism is the sharpest weapon the proletariat has in its struggle against capitalist society and the capitalists themselves. The past century has also revealed which class is truly extremist and has shattered all "logical" refutations of the class struggle.
Public Mod Note
(Jay13x):
Warning for Flaming/Trolling
Well, this is the United states. The first amendment is a real thing. If socialism (or any other political party or ideology) were outlawed, we would in fact be less a democracy and more close to a socialist society than we are now.
Also, please stop with the Slippery Slopefallacies concerning socialism in this topic. It's extremely typical of 'extremists' to do this and it's making me sick. Can we have a discussion on socialism without degrading into shoutfests on communism please? Newsflash, I live in Europe and there are no gulags here.
That's sort of where I was trying to go with this, but it seems like we do have an actual-factual revolutionary communist on our hands, so .
Was the Civil War against the White Russians a mistaken battle for "brute redistribution of wealth"?
Yes. The monarchist regime before the Revolution was miserable. But the communist regime after the Revolution was also miserable. And since monarchism and communism are the only two possibilities on the political spectrum, and there are no others whatsoever, I guess mankind is simply doomed to misery. Shucks.
Because Taiwan is such a fascist nightmare. Censoring the internet, suppressing religions, jailing dissidents, murdering protestors... oh, wait, I'm confused, that's not Taiwan.
If Guevera had caught Batista would you seriously claim he should have been allowed to keep his personal fortune?
No. But if Guevara had caught Buffett? Yes. And if any law enforcement agency had caught Guevara? Jail for life or a firing squad. Man was a violent racist sociopath. Fighting evil does not automatically make one good.
Nope. I feel like I gave Marx more than a fair hearing when I slogged through Das Kapital in college. I saw no reason to waste any more time with him when I could be reading stuff far more relevant to the human condition, like the scholarship of early medieval Germanic literature. (Are you familiar with "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics"? You may have heard of the author. It's possibly the best thing he's written - if you've got a passing familiarity with the intellectual context.) I can say with confidence, however, that if what Marx writes there agrees with what you're arguing, then he is being shortsighted and very very wrong, for the reason I already gave: the revolutionary seizure of wealth destroys the economy and hamstrings future wealth generation for decades to come. But Marx being wrong does not exactly cause me to drop to my knees in astonishment.
As I mentioned to Triumvirate, when I said "socialist thinkers" I was really referring more to contemporary writers whose ideas have not been utterly discredited and about whom productive conversations can still be had, Piketty being an excellent example. I have actually been meaning to get through Capital in the 21st Century one of these days.
Socialism is a crime in bourgeois society and there has been over 100 years of proof that Marxism is the sharpest weapon the proletariat has in its struggle against capitalist society and the capitalists themselves. The past century has also revealed which class is truly extremist and has shattered all "logical" refutations of the class struggle.
Wait, you're invoking the 20th Century as evidence in favor of Marxism? The century in which every single communist state has (a) reverted to capitalism, (b) collapsed, (c) become hell on earth, or (d) all of the above?
But when the next communist revolution happens, I'm sure everything will turn out just fine!
Two world wars, hundreds of millions killed, barbarism running rampant (tell me when the last fascist regimes fell..), whole continents immiserated, world "powers" run by homicidal maniacs. What is your definition of hell on earth exactly? If it is not the last century of capitalist society, then what is it? A planet turned into a giant sweatshop run by the illogical, insane brain socially imbued into commodities?
Do you conveniently overlook that the second the lone bloc of resistance disappears a generation ago that the floodgates of hell reopen almost overnight? It took them all of 25 years to revert to actual Nazism -- they couldn't even be bothered to "Neo" in front. Obama might as well call himself Fat Hermann at this point.
I already know that you are an apologist for all of those things and much more, but even so it must give you pause once in a while, no?
I saw no reason to waste any more time with him when I could be reading stuff far more relevant to the human condition, like the scholarship of early medieval Germanic literature. (Are you familiar with "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics"? You may have heard of the author. It's possibly the best thing he's written - if you've got a passing familiarity with the intellectual context.)
I get resorting to Tolkein to get your moralizing jollies, but I don't really see the "power" of German lit in that regard, that you couldn't find in a thousand other places. Maybe if you want to argue that almost all high fantasy and science fiction are some kind of extended bizarro Reawakening?
I think your entire case rests on assertions regarding human nature ("the human condition"). Here's what Maxim Gorky had to say about that
The only weapon of self-defense of a philistine is cynicism
I hope his "intellectual context" measures up for you.
(and his quote ably sums up what I referred to as your catechism, above. The communists have no catechisms, no infallible leaders, no fixed dogma, no unchanging schema, etc)
I already know that you are an apologist for all of those things and much more, but even so it must give you pause once in a while, no?
Honestly, I don't even know what you're referring to. Because surely it can't be the fall of the Soviet Union. I mean, it'd just be crazy if you actually believed that normal people occasionally thought to themselves, "You know, maybe things would be better if the Berlin Wall were still up." Right?
I get resorting to Tolkein to get your moralizing jollies, but I don't really see the "power" of German lit in that regard, that you couldn't find in a thousand other places.
My point exactly. I could just as easily have said Green Eggs and Ham. Good job killing that joke.
The only weapon of self-defense of a philistine is cynicism
...aaand the quote doesn't even make sense. Firstly, it doesn't make sense in its own right: philistines have tons of other weapons of self-defense (I recommend firearms). Secondly, it doesn't make sense in this conversation: you're alleging I'm a cynic to imply I'm a philistine, but he doesn't say "Only philistines use cynicism for self-defense", so logic fail. Thirdly, you may chalk it up as a victory that you made me break out the big guns of elementary logic to defend myself when normally historically-informed sarcasm is more than sufficient to dismiss people like you - but if I'm using logic to defend myself I'm clearly not using cynicism, so take that victory right back down again. And fourthly, you're the one who keeps trying to tell us that the world is going to hell in a handbasket now that communism isn't there to save us, so remind me again how I'm supposed to be the cynic here?
Do you agree?
If not, aren't you concerned about the fruits of your labor being taken from you?
And could you explain to me how you went from "support the less fortunate" to robbery?
Most socialists wouldn't literally rob the rich to support the poor. That's kind of like saying a capitalist would rob the poor and give to the rich and then say "the rich obviously worked hard to get what they have, they deserve to have this stuff, too".
Also: Robin Hood is always the hero in his story. He is a thief, but people want him to win because he's supporting the hardworking but poor peasants and the people he's stealing from have more than enough already.
Overall, not every poor person is poor because they're lazy, and not every rich person got that way through hard work.
I kindasorta have a feeling this is a troll thread.
People supporting the death penalty seem to believe that some criminals should be murdered. Isn't this the same kind of person who would break into the houses of people they think have done a crime and murder them? I personally think that it's in society's best interest to criminalize this philosophy and to put these kinds of individuals in prison.
Do you agree?
With that out of the way, this idea that socialism amounts to theft or that we should criminalize a political philosophy is absolutely poisonous and antithetical to whatever progress you're trying to make. First off, wantng to criminalize an opposing viewpoint is basically a concession that your ideas can't stand up to theirs in an open debate. If socialism is a bad idea (and I think it is) then it should ultimately lose out in the marketplace of ideas. Criminalizing or banning certain political perspectives is the hallmark of totalitarian governments. Whatever you may think of socialism, totalitarianism is worse.
Second, some amount of "redistribution" or taxation is inevitable in any functioning government. Public roads, for example, are more efficient than a private system of competing toll roads. The wasted infrastructure cost exceeds whatever efficiency benefits you get from privatization. The same is true for things like the court system, the police, firefighters, prisons, and military. You really don't want to privatize those things. So you inevitably will get some amount of forced contribution to these services. The idea that this is theft is ludicrous. It's the price of living in a functioning society. Some taxes and programs are bad, and we should recognize them as bad and try to get rid of them, but arguing that all tax amounts to someone breaking into your home and stealing your things does a disservice to the argument by painting these issues with an unhelpfully broad brush.
As an aside about Orwell, communists slamming the Soviet Union. Funny, that, but our resident Cold Warriors don't realize how much communists second-guessed each other.
On phasing:
The most obviosu counter-argument is that the power to persuade in a market leaves the buyer with free will, whereas pointing a gun at someone doesn't give them any meaningful choice.
However.
The most extreme free-market advocates object to ANY regulation. One of the most problematic concepts to deal with here revolves around anti-trust. If company X uses superior financial power to corner the market on a product, say Oil, that is vital to lif, it then obtains a similar power to force of arms- the ability to deny consumers meaningful choice. They cannot make the meaningful choice not to deal with company X, as the product they sell is vital to modern life. Oil may be an outdated example, so if you're having an issue that that, substitute Food.
When you follow this line of thought, it becomes rapidly apparent that some level of regulation is required for a free market to operate fairly.
Anti-Trust regulation IS a redistribution of wealth and power. Without it, the strongest actor in any given field will, inevitably, control the entire field if operating under typical capitalistc principles. Eventually, a monolithic entity must be broken up and it's wealth (resources) and power resdistributed among other smaller actors in order for the system to function fairly.
This is the essence of socialism. People have basic rights, and a lack of ability, or even drive and motivation, is not sufficient to deny them of those rights. An examination of the values of free-market capitalists vs. socialists eventually boils down to what those basic rights are. Socialists belive that things like medical care, housing, and a basic standard of living are fundamental human rights, and therefore it is the responsibility fo society to provide those thigns to people who are unable, or yes even unwilling, to provide them for themselves. Free-market capitalists generally believe that these things will be better provided by private interests (charities, including churches) and private donors. They object to being "forced" to provide these basic right for their fellows by the government. A few radicals believe that these are not basic rights at all, and that people who refuse to work or are unable to work can be left without food or shelter, without introducing any moral quadaries. Among educated capitalists, these people are fee, far between, and are the equivalent of Jihadists or the Westboro Baptist Church. too often socialists portray capitalists as unfeeling and uncaring. This is wrong and misses the point.
A socialist like myself believes that privae interests will never be sufficient, and that the government, as the representative of the people and the embodiment of society, should fullfill the obligations of the people and society. If, as a society, we accept that we cannot allow people to starve, to go without shelter and the basic requirements of living, then we, as a society, have to act to prevent such thigns from happening. The Government is our vehicle for acting together as a whole society. We cannot rely on a small subset of society (private interests, charities, the Churches, etc...) to fullfill our obligations - we must do so collectively.
It then becomes a matter of how to do so fairly and effectively. Socialists believe that people with greater ability have greater responsibility. Capitalists believe that everyone shares equal responsbility.
I am a socialist because I recognize that people are not equal. People have equal rights, but people do not have equal abilities, and therefore do not have equal responsibilities. To illustrate, let's say in a public area a woman is being mugged by a man with a small knife. Three people are walking by and see the mugging: an elderly person with a walker, an athlete in their early 20's, and a 10 year speical forces vetern with advanced combat training who is current armed with a loaded gun and is still in prime physical condition. Most people would agree that the elder has no responsibility to personally intervene in the mugging - the elder only places themself in danger by doing so and is unlikely to make much of an impact. People might be divided on the athlete- sure that person is in good physical condition and might be able to offer some real help, but on the other hand they do put themself at risk by intervening. Almost everyone would agree it would be a noble thing to do, but there would be much dissent about weather or not it's an obligation. Finally, I think most people would agree that the armed speical forces vet has an obligation here - this person is clearly capable of helping and, given the armament and training this person has, they are unlikey to face a significant risk by doing so. There are some people who belive that none of the three has any responsibility to act.
In an economic situation, the woman being mugged is replaced by a person with a part-time, minimum wage job that is not sufficient to earn a living wage. The elder is someone who makes a living wage, but just gets by. They don't have the means to help the woman, and if they tried they would place themself in economic jeopardy. The athlete is a middle-class worker- yes, they potentially have the resources to help, but there is some risk exposure to doing so and contraversy over weather or not they should. The spec ops vet is a multi-millionaire- they have the resources to help without any real risk of loss to themselves.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
For one side, it seems careless and unfeeling to let another human being rot but it's ambiguous as far as moral goes. After all, no one reasonable will blame you for passing your time here on MTGSalvation instead of working and giving money to poor people on the street. On the other hand, if you make help compulsory (morally or legally) you give people the choice to not do what they can do and still benefit from everyone else's efforts, which is surely a immoral action (not working out of your free will knowing other people will have to work extra hard for you IS immoral).
Your analogy doesn't hold to the fiscal matter (the matter of which is morally right or wrong to tribute and raise a welfare state). The living wage is not a good index in the sense it's name does not follow it's definition. The living wage is the wage needed to sustain a family with standards of living decided by policy makers. It's not actually the wage needed to stay alive.
If living wages were needed to stay alive and a significant amount of people were earning less then it, there wouldn't be poor people in the world eventually simply because they would die, which obviously is not what's happening. Socialist really have to admit what's in wager here. It's not people life, it's their comfort.
Socialist policy are not meant to keep people from dying on hunger, it's about giving then a desirable standard of living.
In my opinion the largest question to be addressed on this topic is how do we cross the line between people who can and people who cannot achieve this standard by then self. Only then we will know for certain how much of socialist policy is needed.
Policies focused on opportunities offers a good moral solution for this as they let people achieve the desirable standard without overburdening the others. The issue is efficiency: the fact that people just miss out on opportunities (public schools drop outs) or that opportunities are not so easy to be handled over like other service makes this line really hard to engage.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
You are also stating that making less than a living wage still means someone can "live". While this may strictly be true, there are still huge, huge problems. These are people who may well starve to death without government intervention in the form of food stamps, school-provided meals, etc. These are people who resort to illegal means, be it theft, sale of drugs, or less obvious law-breakings like breaking housing code by putting too many people in a dwelling to be able to afford it. These are people who risk homelessness, or experience it, and are often only spared from it by government intervention.
These are people who cannot afford to save *anything* for the future, so when they are incapable of working (due to illness, injury, or age), they rely entirely on government intervention to survive.
Note how I keep saying government intervention? This is the same "socialism" that you are saying should be a crime.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
The unemployment statistics are composed of rotating people. If someone is more then a year looking for a job and find none the problem is not the job demand but this person job searching skills. Not to mention autonomous labor is a thing: you can always work by yourself by using simple skills such as gardening, cooking or carpentering. Now if you're adult, don't know how to search for a job or don't have any economically useful skills then you fall in the category of people who aren't capable of working.
The USA receives a massive amount of immigrants looking for nothing but better opportunities and the constant influx shows they find it. I wonder how people that came from places with worse educations can find jobs if there's such a structural job shortage there.
This whole linkage between crime and poverty is also fallacious. There's a correlation between the two - but the correlation exist because crime is relatively better opportunity the worse the other opportunities you get on a legal job. The image of this criminal who mugs to feed his hungry children is simply false.
Again, don't pretend the welfare system is meant to save people who cannot work and would suffer a lot otherwise. Punctual intervention - policies designed to help people in specific needs or extreme poverty, is NOT a characteristic of socialism. For example, a policy who rescue and reestablish people who suffered from hurricanes or floods or macroeconomic policy to help in a massive unemployment crisis are not what's socialism is about.
Modern democratic socialism is about the construction of a welfare state were all elected human rights are attended. It is desirable inside the system that everyone have access to housing, food, clothing, health, education, culture and entertainment. Everyone, even people who are not contributing enough to social product in order to pay for this. Even people who could contribute (the question is strongly rejected by most socialism, as they think it is unfair to judge if a people could or could not contribute).
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
I see you've never heard of the term "overqualified" or the concept that businesses freely admit to not hiring people who have been out of work for 6 months. Or that businesses discriminate based on age, gender, or name. Or that hardly any businesses rely on reading resumes and cover letters anymore and instead rely on software algorithms to weed out applicants based on how many times they use the words that were in the posting (i.e. a human will never look at your resume). Or the fact that a good portion of hires are done with knowing someone within the organization rather than sending out a bunch of resumes. Or that gigs aren't a way for a sustainable income because it is a volatile way to make ends meet, plus it won't give you health insurance or get you to a doctor if you get injured on the job and need workers comp.
Wow. Let's unpack this, shall we? First of all, this kind of reasoning is simply a way for people to shift blame. I'm working, and I'm a hard worker, therefore if you're not working you're lazy. But nothing in life is ever that simple.
Following on BatterysRevenge, it's a lot more complicated than simply finding a menial labor job. Business don't want to hire you if you're only going to work there until you find something better in a few months, and they assume everyone who isn't a simple laborer is looking for something else (and they're right, too). Ageism is a major problem, because companies don't want to invest in someone who is just going to retire in 10 years and expect a high salary when they can hire some fresh college grad instead.
Besides which, Gardening, Cooking and Carpentry aren't simple skills. For carpentry and cooking (beyond flipping burgers) at least, you need a fair amount of education and training, and going back to worry about someone leaving - why would an employer hire someone and invest in that training only to have them leave shortly after?
So people are largely relegated to their career path, and have to pray they don't get let go between 50 and 65.
God forbid you have children who can't take care of themselves yet, either. You better pray you have family willing to help out, because Mickey D's ain't paying for daycare.
Besides which, just 'finding a job' isn't adequate. If you've got a family to support and bills to pay, $11 an hour isn't going to cut it.
Do you really not get the issue with that statement?
If you're talking illegal immigration, it's because employers can get away with paying them next to nothing.
If you're talking legal immigration, there are a wide array of issues here that maybe you don't get. Immigration in the United States requires a sponsor. If you've got a job, that sponsor would be your employer. Otherwise, it's usually going to be a family member or community member who is already set up in the United States. Those sponsors provides ongoing economic and logistical support and they often provide jobs. Why do you think so many immigrant-run business are staffed by family and friends? Because they provide support to their own communities.
I'm not sure anyone is making a "Mugger with a heart of gold" connection here. The issue with crime is that it's self perpetuating in poor communities. In many areas in places like the inner city, there are all sorts of dangerous elements a kid can get caught up in, and there can be the allure of quick money when you're best work prospect is a minimum wage job. Problem is, you get a record and no one is going to hire you. So if you did something stupid while you're young, even after serving your time very few people will hire you (in many places you're required to mention you're a ex-con or on parole when applying for work)... which only leaves illegal methods of obtaining money available for many.
In your own words, can you describe what you think the welfare system is? This is a serious question, because I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here - there are a LOT of programs that can be considered 'welfare', so I want to make sure.
Also, how do you think people are 'rescued and reestablished' from disasters? I work in emergency management and I'm curious as to how a lay person views it.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Can you try to rephrase it?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You clearly have no experience in HR or it must been a while since you haven't gone in a job interview. Only very, very competitive positions have this sort of selection, precisely because they are selecting hundreds candidates to one spot. And this is just one step, you still probably go for math/logic/compression tests, personal interview and tests in the specific area you're applying.
Feels like your idea of a job selection is the selection of a top engineer or programmer or high profile management. It's not like the majority of people are educated, experienced and smart enough to occupy this sort of spots anyway. There are many spots on areas that demands less from you and pay less, but enough to have a nice and happy life. It's just that the level of self entitlement of some people those days are across the board. It's like they are never satisfied, always wanting what others conquered.
I didn't say you're lazy. I said you're either naturally not able to work or doing bad life choices. The first case deserves public attention, the second is questionable.
Business don't want is a overgeneralizing statement based on no real fact or statistics. The fact and statistic is the USA have a low unemployment rate and this unemployment rate is composed of rotating people. The share of the population who are really locked out of the labor market is minimal, so small they sometimes don't even appear on official statistics. Those cases are the exception, not the general state of the labor market in a capitalistic system. And devising public policies to help those isolated cases IS NOT socialism.
About gardening, cooking and carpentry. I know those are not simple, maybe that was a bad word I used to describe then. They are easy access in the sense you don't need formal training (money) in order to learn then. These are the kind of skills that you normally obtain by simply practicing in your free time or learning with your parents.
I'm talking about both types of immigration.
Illegal one: They earn little but still is MUCH more what they gain in their respective countries and I'm not sure if you're familiar with third world countries but we actually don't constantly die or live a horrible life. I earn 1/3 of USA's minimal wage (purchase power adjusted) and I live a fine material life, in the sense I shouldn't be demanding public intervention in my favor.
Legal One: As you said people immigrates there when they have a job, so they could find a job there... from another country or even continent. And social capital / networking is indeed a factor in all this: reason it is easier for a native american to find a job there. You know, you're in your native country, you belong to the biggest and dominant community over there.
I think at this point the real issue is starting to show up. Which the younger generation is denying the paramount importance of family and community to their sustenance and wants to fill those holes with government care.
I actually agree with this. Reason why we need a policy to solve all this giant mess and the tendency is it getting out of hand. The more crime perpetuates in area, more it becomes something morally acceptable to people living there. Ten or more generations down the line we might be looking in something that could be local conflicts (aka mini civil wars). This conflict can be observed in countries where crime is more advanced (Brazil).
This is unfortunately how some areas developed and I believe public action to fix then is needed. But localized policy like that is not what's socialism is.
The welfare social network is a institution that characterize social-democratic estates. The idea is to tax everyone (progressively most of the time) in order to sustain a wide array of public services that are permanent (they should be at disposal all times) and universal (should be at disposal to every citizen, no exception). Normally those services are far beyond social security and education, they include healthcare, housing, entertainment and clothing.
This kind of public policy is different from the specific interventions that are universally accepted by all sort of political schools (except the very radical ones). Specific Interventions includes aiding people who suffered from natural disasters, devising policy to solve specific social anomalies (such as the propagation of slums or helping people who are completely locked out of labor markets), helping people with difficult physical conditions, distributing food on food shortage crisis, fighting dangerous diseases and epidemics, etc...
The above is not considered as part of socialism or a true welfare state. Those policies is just public action solving specific problems that occasionally appear in every country. Socialism is about everyone sharing their earning so everyone may have a more comfortable life (in the presence or not of such anomalies).
It's a important distinction. A social-democracy would have, by law, that universal public education would be offered even if people actually have money to pay for it.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
There seems to be a major gap between our understand of the facts here. Here are a few quick articles I found with links to studies or other data.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/long-term-unemployed-struggle-to-find--and-keep--jobs/2014/04/18/134c48f6-c4ad-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-terrifying-reality-of-long-term-unemployment/274957/
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2014/08/25/hiring-bias-against-the-unemployed-should-there-be-a-law
http://www.rural.palegislature.us/unemploy_underemploy.pdf
Look, I've researched this extensively while I was in undergrad. I was once a pretty big Republican and espoused a lot of the beliefs you are right now. But when I actually had to dig down into the research and the social realities of the job market, I started rethinking a lot of those beliefs.
This is a bit of a strawman. These principles apply all across the middle class, not just some vague elite entity. Even a secretary who is laid off will have the same kinds of problems as a high-level manager.
This is a cop out. The only options out there aren't 'Working, Not able to work, or it's your own fault you're not working'.
You've got it backwards, a little bit here. First of all, there are a lot of reasons people rotate out of unemployment:
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/why-did-the-unemployment-rate-drop-so-much-1341/
As for me 'overgeneralizing', this has actually been studied a lot. Here is just one example.
Wait, what? Have you ever tried to find a chef job? You need more than experience cooking with your family. And gardening with your parents is a little bit different than working for a landscaping company. All three of these things are jobs where you'll either need real previous experience (not just practicing at home) or you'll need some sort of on the job training.
Aren't you Brazilian? Cost of living there is 1/3rd of that in the US, so I'm not really sure how the comparison is accurate.
I actually don't deny this. Family has traditionally been the fall back plan for parents who are retiring or kids in need. In the US, we're way too quick to ditch our parents at a nursing home.
I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here. Let's leave the what is socialism issues off to the side, because what I have issues with is your portrayal of the job market.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The replies so far are misleading you because you are right about one thing: socialists fully intend to confiscate (expropriate) the wealthy. Breaking into their homes is unnecessary because we will be taking that too.,
So let me rewrite the rest of your post about the philosophy the demands that rich be protected at all costs, no matter how many of the poor must be immiserated or starve and die as a result:
I personally think that it's in societies best interest to criminalize this philosophy and to put these kinds of individuals in prison.
If not, aren't you concerned about the pittance the rich allot you now being taken from you?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You have not presented an argument,only a catechism. Mostly you have shared your "thoughts" which passively reflect the prejudices of the day without adding anything to the discussion.
If you wish to have a conversation in shorthand -- speaking only in banalities and turns of a phrase -- let me accommodate you. I will see your "seize the means of production" and raise you "expropriate the expropriators" and "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
In your vulgarized explanation, "brute distribution of wealth" is the vulgarity. Have you thought this through (this is rhetorical as it is already understood that you have not)? Are you going to let the rich keep their bank accounts? Their mansions and private estates (which will continue to be privately maintained?)? Perhaps there is some gray area on precisely where the is drawn between petty possessions but that does not make the matter ambiguous.
Was the Civil War against the White Russians a mistaken battle for "brute redistribution of wealth"? What about the de facto fascist KMT? If Guevera had caught Batista would you seriously claim he should have been allowed to keep his personal fortune? (The same fortune he quickly spirited away, not-so-incidentally). None of those are legitimate questions because the answers are obvious. Give them an inch and you do nothing but sound the death knell of the revolution and sign your own death warrant.
Its also worth noting that Marx wrote about the (re)distribution of the wealth of society in one of his last (ie "mature") significant writings, Critique of the Gotha Program. This is his response in a letter to the draft of the program that would eventually serve as a platform/foundation for the German SPD. Here is where he invokes such phrases as "from each..to each.." Are you familiar with what Marx says here? (this also requires more than a passing familiarity with the time period, Lasalle, the unification of the parties, and etc).
And this post, friends, is why socialism doesn't need to be a crime. No one reading this torrent of slogans and name dropping is coming away convinced we should lift up our pitchforks and plunder the bourgeois. Extremism like this can't compete in the marketplace of ideas because it's devoid of logical support.
The simple truth is that you are wrong on every point. Socialism is a crime in bourgeois society and there has been over 100 years of proof that Marxism is the sharpest weapon the proletariat has in its struggle against capitalist society and the capitalists themselves. The past century has also revealed which class is truly extremist and has shattered all "logical" refutations of the class struggle.
Hell, I didn't even say "seize".
"Vulgar". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Yes. The monarchist regime before the Revolution was miserable. But the communist regime after the Revolution was also miserable. And since monarchism and communism are the only two possibilities on the political spectrum, and there are no others whatsoever, I guess mankind is simply doomed to misery. Shucks.
Because Taiwan is such a fascist nightmare. Censoring the internet, suppressing religions, jailing dissidents, murdering protestors... oh, wait, I'm confused, that's not Taiwan.
No. But if Guevara had caught Buffett? Yes. And if any law enforcement agency had caught Guevara? Jail for life or a firing squad. Man was a violent racist sociopath. Fighting evil does not automatically make one good.
Nope. I feel like I gave Marx more than a fair hearing when I slogged through Das Kapital in college. I saw no reason to waste any more time with him when I could be reading stuff far more relevant to the human condition, like the scholarship of early medieval Germanic literature. (Are you familiar with "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics"? You may have heard of the author. It's possibly the best thing he's written - if you've got a passing familiarity with the intellectual context.) I can say with confidence, however, that if what Marx writes there agrees with what you're arguing, then he is being shortsighted and very very wrong, for the reason I already gave: the revolutionary seizure of wealth destroys the economy and hamstrings future wealth generation for decades to come. But Marx being wrong does not exactly cause me to drop to my knees in astonishment.
As I mentioned to Triumvirate, when I said "socialist thinkers" I was really referring more to contemporary writers whose ideas have not been utterly discredited and about whom productive conversations can still be had, Piketty being an excellent example. I have actually been meaning to get through Capital in the 21st Century one of these days.
Wait, you're invoking the 20th Century as evidence in favor of Marxism? The century in which every single communist state has (a) reverted to capitalism, (b) collapsed, (c) become hell on earth, or (d) all of the above?
But when the next communist revolution happens, I'm sure everything will turn out just fine!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Do you conveniently overlook that the second the lone bloc of resistance disappears a generation ago that the floodgates of hell reopen almost overnight? It took them all of 25 years to revert to actual Nazism -- they couldn't even be bothered to "Neo" in front. Obama might as well call himself Fat Hermann at this point.
I already know that you are an apologist for all of those things and much more, but even so it must give you pause once in a while, no?
I get resorting to Tolkein to get your moralizing jollies, but I don't really see the "power" of German lit in that regard, that you couldn't find in a thousand other places. Maybe if you want to argue that almost all high fantasy and science fiction are some kind of extended bizarro Reawakening?
I think your entire case rests on assertions regarding human nature ("the human condition"). Here's what Maxim Gorky had to say about that
I hope his "intellectual context" measures up for you.
(and his quote ably sums up what I referred to as your catechism, above. The communists have no catechisms, no infallible leaders, no fixed dogma, no unchanging schema, etc)
Yes, Barack Obama thinks that democracy is weakness, black people are subhuman, and racial miscegenation is anathema. That sure sounds like him.
Honestly, I don't even know what you're referring to. Because surely it can't be the fall of the Soviet Union. I mean, it'd just be crazy if you actually believed that normal people occasionally thought to themselves, "You know, maybe things would be better if the Berlin Wall were still up." Right?
My point exactly. I could just as easily have said Green Eggs and Ham. Good job killing that joke.
That's funny, I think I haven't asserted a single thing about human nature or the human condition (not the same thing, by the way).
Here's what Dorothy L. Sayers had to say about that:
"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought."
And also:
"I always have a quotation for everything - it saves original thinking."
Huh. Seems like she was right.
...aaand the quote doesn't even make sense. Firstly, it doesn't make sense in its own right: philistines have tons of other weapons of self-defense (I recommend firearms). Secondly, it doesn't make sense in this conversation: you're alleging I'm a cynic to imply I'm a philistine, but he doesn't say "Only philistines use cynicism for self-defense", so logic fail. Thirdly, you may chalk it up as a victory that you made me break out the big guns of elementary logic to defend myself when normally historically-informed sarcasm is more than sufficient to dismiss people like you - but if I'm using logic to defend myself I'm clearly not using cynicism, so take that victory right back down again. And fourthly, you're the one who keeps trying to tell us that the world is going to hell in a handbasket now that communism isn't there to save us, so remind me again how I'm supposed to be the cynic here?
What? Read that back to yourself; I think it must have sounded more impressive in your head.
Turn in your mind-reader's license and ask for a refund. It's obviously not working out for you.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.