Furthermore, don't confuse need with desire. You have no need of that excess wealth, but you desire it. Having your needs met isn't a moral quandary, though I would agree that having all your desires met is. And in any case, you come back to the assumption that people are objectively "entitled to what they earn," as if materialism were a value set in stone.
Wait, are you implying that people are NOT objectively entitiled to what they earn? If that is true, then you may excuse me whilst I hang myself.
"Suffering" for the sake of morality? The necessities of life are met. That isn't suffering unless they choose to compare themselves to someone living in greater luxury. One problem with the U.S. is that people constantly determine their happiness by comparing themselves to others. We fool ourselves into thinking that we can only be happy by "keeping up with the Joneses." But the fact remains that even the "poor people" in the U.S. are living more luxuriously than the entirety of some countries. They aren't suffering, except in their own minds.
Incidentally, (though I don't think you are accusing me of this) I never compare myself to others. When I say suffering for the sake of morality, I don't mean literal, painful suffering; I mean suffering under the yoke of a morality that doesn't believe you have any moral entitlement to what you earn. I do think that the person working 30 hours a week should have a place to live, and food on the table, however NOT at the expense of the person working 50 hours. The ideal is nice, everyone getting their needs met, but in the case of socialism or communism, the end does not justify the means.
EDIT to include a response to fels anarchist:
Oh yay, one of my favorite topics. Thanks for starting this. I dont think I need to say much, by the name it seems kind of obvious. But I dont want to come of as some 5 year old that just realized what anarchy ment.
In brief, I am an anarchist, true heartedly. I have studied it, all I can study it. And I honestly believe it would work. I dont really want to go into detail because I will; get side tracked, not sound clear about what im talking about, mess up mainly. But anywho, most people probably think that anarchy is just NO RULES wich...ok...some what it is. But theres an order and perfection to it.
It's incredibly hard to imagine it, but, if you will, all government, all forms all branches all everything, dropped. SERIOUSLY everything, just quit and was no more. It would be totall hell, wich would suck. Now of course there are many different views to this, some think it's possible witout chaos, like a slow moving rid of governemnt, I personally do not. Anyway, back on track (see?). Now in this hell wich most people think is anarchy, there would be no rules, no protection, no laws, no princibles just straight chaos, if you chose. BUT eventually things would settle, most people dont think about certain (most) rules every day of their lives anyway, so in theory it might not be that bad. Myself am more afraid to rob a place because of the owner shooting me, not getting arrested. That's how everyone would act. They would become aware of people's rights (personall ACTUAL RIGHTS) and grow accustomed to them. Eventually you would stop getting robbed, shops would be opening back up, everything would become hole again. A new trade item would be used for marketing and such. And that is PURE anarchy. Anarchy doesn't exactly mean, kill everyone there's no ruls bull crap.
I hope that made any since at all, I know most people would not agree, but it's fun to think about. So whatever, as something a little more close to home, I think comunism would work. I comepletly agree with eci4's earlier statements.
This is nice theory and all, but think about it. Here's a scenario: One man accuses another of robbing him, and kills the man. Other men accuse him of killing the man unjustly, and attack the first man, who is now being defended by others. With no justice system, anarchy would quickly break down into perpetual gang warfare, no matter how you cut it. Even if society did settle down, all it would take is one guy with a gun to bring it all crashing down. I personally would like it if anarchy were possible, but it's simply not. For a society to survive, at least a primitive justice system must be established, which would of course presuppose the creation of laws and you are back where you started, gov't and all. It has happened in any primitive culture that has ever thought anarchy was a good thing.
Description: While Draven is 6"1', he gives people the impression of being small, given his emaciated figure and loose fitting clothing. His face is gaunt and underfed, highlighted by two brilliantly green eyes, the color of the sun reflecting off the ocean in midafternoon. His hair, a long black mane, is thrown loosely into a pony tail. He generally wears simple cotton clothing, though at a young age he figured out how to fortify it to make it as tough as a bullet proof vest, though not quite as strong as steel.
Backround: Draven was raised by his mother. He is a child not conceived in love, but in a violent rape. His mother, a brave, albeit small woman, chose to raise him alone. She was killed in a gun fight when he was but a child, and he was left to raise himself, granting him skills necessary for survival. He now roams as a throwback from times long past, a mercenary who kills both machines and his own kind.
Weapons: He carries on his person 2 pistols and a daikatana. Those are the only weapons he needs, as he is a master with both.
Other items: He is not one for sentimentality, however he has always carried around the knife his mother gave him as a boy. He never uses it, but it is always strapped to his right leg.
Currency: He is far from what we would call frugal, and though he has a rather steady income as a merc, he spends it quickly. At present, he has just $500 to his name.
This requires a certain moral system in order to properly function. I know you don't understand altruism, but it's necessary for a well-functioning communist system. One finds that doing good for others can be its own reward, and that it need not be accompanied by material compensation. As long as all are living in comfort and every need is met, what more can one ask? Well, for those in a competitive society, it's only natural for someone to question whether he shouldn't be better off socially than another. But with the right moral framework, everyone recognizes that everyone makes his or her own contribution. Of course, this raises the question of whether people can be so completely devoted to altruism.
Is that how someone should wish to morally spend their life? Every need being met? I'm sorry if it makes me "immoral" but I enjoy getting material compensation for working 50+ hours a week. And if my neighbor is working 30, I don't think I should be forced to give what I have to him. In order for pure communism to work, people have to honestly believe that they are not entitled to what they earn. They must help the greater whole. Communism is not the perfect system because it ignores completely the rights of the individual. The collective is seen as the ultimate goal. To quote the novel We the Living:
"What is society?"
"...society is a stupendous whole."
"If you line a hundred zero's in a row, it is still nothing."
Although, I do love this part:
One finds that doing good for others can be its own reward, and that it need not be accompanied by material compensation.
Kind of a double edged sword, ya know what I mean? If they say that they don't like giving up what they earn, they are immoral. If they endure it, they are suffering for the sake of morality. Huh.
No, it's not that I focus on the criminal. It's that you free stuff is evil. You simply don't, and haven't since good old "Taxation of the Rich" that when the rich ignore the poor's needs, and the criminals (violent ones generally BEING poor) are rehibilitated, you create a timebomb. Massive schizm's between the rich and the poor, coupled with violence ALWAYS leads to revolution.
Really now? Cuz America has always had a fairly large fissure between the rich and poor, and, well it's been over *checks calendar* 200 years now. You seem to forget that these revolutions to which you allude all took place under an aristocracy or dictatorship, the best example of which is the Bolshevik revolution, under a Czar. The French Revolution was under King Louie, I believe. I doubt if you could find an example of a poor-people revolution under a democratic-esque state.
Oh, and:
It's that you free stuff is evil.
The problem is, it isn't free. The money had to first be earned before it was expropriated.
In any form of society, cooperative or competitive, people are required to do work to earn their share. This is part of the social contract. Communism and socialism, at heart, have never protected the lazy. Bastardized forms of socialist policy (such as welfare) seem to be your main gripe. But in order to sustain a truly cooperative society, everyone must fulfill a role. Note, however, that you may argue that people do unequal amounts of work, but that can be amended by distributing the work more evenly.
(Note: I don't really condone pure communism, as I still find it lacking for other reasons. But "justice of wages" is not one of those reasons.)
Under socialism(not bastardized, you understand) everyone must work. As the bromide goes, "he who does not toil does not eat." Fine. But under such a system(and correct me if I'm wrong), people would earn equal pay for all kinds of work. The brain surgeon would be economically on the same level as the school janitor...this is right? You spoke of distributing the work, which translates to the gov't telling people where they can and cannot work, based on the needs of the majority. So not only do they not compensate properly for hard work, but they choose which hard work you are to do...this is...good?
Incidentallly, how would your "socialized democracy" work?
IMHO, people cannot truly know anything that was not innately created, as the transfer of information from the outer world into a person (like scientific data) or from a person into the outer world/another person (like an idea) requires a translation, whether it is linguistic, artistic, mathematical, or otherwise. These translations form the system of "perception." All of these translations are inherently imperfect, and thus no true meaning may ever be understood by a person who has not themselves created it.
Further, the occupations of scientist and artist rely on this imperfect translation known as perception. The scientist attempts to gain knowledge about the outside world by attempting to get rid of all influence of perception. The artist attempts to examine the system of perception itself by creating his own knowledge, which is perfect while innate, and then releasing it through a translation.
Thoughts? Am I just crazy? I got an angry response from my TOK teacher for a paper describing such ideas. (no bad grade/T2 situation, just a vehement disagreement)
Hm. I never had you pegged for the philosophy type, but I suppose I must be wrong once in a while, eh? Ok. For the record, you are not crazy. This resembles slightly Platonic epistemology, and while not my favorite, does stand firm. The corollary to this theory is that since our perception is inherently imperfect, no absolute truth can ever be ascribed to one thing; the truth of things vary based on everyone's sensual perceptions.
And another thing...you complain when school starts at 8?!?!?!? I would kill for school to start at 8. As it stands, it starts before 7.
@Matt- We've locked the pearly white door at the base of the tower- you may never return to the outside world!!
Jesus Christ...do you have any idea how annoying it is to sit behind a library desk for 5 hours while idiots come up asking for the worst piece of trash ever thrown together in a binding, The DaVinci Code??? I don't see the appeal of that horrid ball of slime. Poorly written, poorly paced, overly didactic dialogue...anyway, onto the subject:
No, actually, that is your close-mindedness once more. You seem to think that the moment anyone does anything wrong ever, they are unclean and can never ever repent. That simply isn't freedom. Yes, a thief has earned his jail time, but when SCIENTIFIC FACT shows that X program makes it Y% less likely for that thief to rob again if we spend Z dollars on a program, why the heck is that evil in your mind?
You constantly focus on the one aspect of that whole thing that mattered least: the analogy. It is not just criminals whom I scorn, get that into your head. It is everyone who believes that they are entitled to something they didn't earn. You asked why I consider a gov't program like this evil? Because it is a gov't program, meaning they took the money from those who earned it to give it to those who didn't. To further explain, let's look at fadeblue's remark:
The real question here is: Should having a decent life be a right or a privilege? If it is a right, then a pure communism guarantees that right by providing for the necessities of life. If it is a privilege, then pure capitalism guarantess that only those who earn it will receive it.
I consider life to be a right. Money, however, is a privilege to be earned, like any other. You think all are entitled to a decent life, ie a decent paycheck? Provided by whom? By those who earned it in the first place. I do support pure capitalism, as it is the only system to guarentee true social justice.
Some people's lot in life is a whole lot easier than others, even if just from the standpoint of their education and so on. Is it right to pretend the system is equal when it blatantly isn't?
Have I ever said it was equal? If I have, I apologize now, for that was not my intended message. However, I do believe that economic situations have far less effect than people seem to believe.
You are all working under the premise that everyone is entitled to a home and food. A fine notion: people should have those things...but not those who didn't earn it at the expense of those who did.[/quote]
Okay, I have about 10 minutes before I have to go to work, so let's make this quick-
This is true T2. However, you've got to ask yourself, how free and balanced is a government where NOTHING is offered, so the programs are not available to anyone. Is equal lack of rights the same thing as equality?
Such a government, one that offers nothing, is exactly what a gov't should be.
Here, in a few words, is the contradiction inherent in communism:
The idea of communism rests on the ideal of social justice, and equality. But don't you know that they are opposites? What is justice, but recieving what one has earned? If a criminal goes to prison, he is getting what he earns. If a murderer is killed, he is getting what he earns. In society, working and earning money, and then keeping that money, is justice. So for a government to have the audacity to take some people's money, and give it to others, thus creating equality, it is practicing a stark injustice. Further, a gov't based on the idea of need over everything else is immediately shouting out their unjust nature: when you say that need is a claim, you are saying that wealth belongs to those who cannot earn it, cannot justly acquire it. Their only claim is that they cannot justly lay a claim...this you consider the perfect gov't?
Communism, by it's very nature, suppresses ability, intelligence: the things that create wealth. It places on its shoulders the weak, the stupid, the lazy---and hails them as the best. This is just?
the ideal gov't depends on what you think a gov't should do. If you think it is the gov't's job is: if you believe the gov't is for the pampering and care of the people, as a paternal figure, then communism is for you. However, if you think that the gov't is a tool of the people, to be used when needed but at no other time, then communism seems to be an ultimate evil.
Welcome, my newfound friend; I hope you find the intellectual stimulation we all so desire, and I hope you find it here.
It's been confirmed: I can remain moderately active here, as I can post at school. At home is a different story, but I can remain active enough to remain clan leader
Okay; we need to decide how many more members we accept before we become snotty and exclusive. We now stand at myself and 9 other members.
The question is: What is your ideal form of government?
Include:
Why?
How would it work?
How would you restructure the United States(or where ever you're from) to fit this?
One stipulation: By "ideal", I also mean practical. An impractical government(eg pure anarchy) is not worth discussing. Keep the conversation to ideal AND possible. I don't want to here: "Well, I like [insert gov't here], but damned human nature makes it impossible."
While I do listen to metal/punk, I am predominantly into classical. Chopin, in particular, is brilliant. Beethoven is good, albeit too maudlin for my tastes.
EDIT to include a response to fels anarchist:
This is nice theory and all, but think about it. Here's a scenario: One man accuses another of robbing him, and kills the man. Other men accuse him of killing the man unjustly, and attack the first man, who is now being defended by others. With no justice system, anarchy would quickly break down into perpetual gang warfare, no matter how you cut it. Even if society did settle down, all it would take is one guy with a gun to bring it all crashing down. I personally would like it if anarchy were possible, but it's simply not. For a society to survive, at least a primitive justice system must be established, which would of course presuppose the creation of laws and you are back where you started, gov't and all. It has happened in any primitive culture that has ever thought anarchy was a good thing.
Race: Human
Age: 23
Description: While Draven is 6"1', he gives people the impression of being small, given his emaciated figure and loose fitting clothing. His face is gaunt and underfed, highlighted by two brilliantly green eyes, the color of the sun reflecting off the ocean in midafternoon. His hair, a long black mane, is thrown loosely into a pony tail. He generally wears simple cotton clothing, though at a young age he figured out how to fortify it to make it as tough as a bullet proof vest, though not quite as strong as steel.
Backround: Draven was raised by his mother. He is a child not conceived in love, but in a violent rape. His mother, a brave, albeit small woman, chose to raise him alone. She was killed in a gun fight when he was but a child, and he was left to raise himself, granting him skills necessary for survival. He now roams as a throwback from times long past, a mercenary who kills both machines and his own kind.
Weapons: He carries on his person 2 pistols and a daikatana. Those are the only weapons he needs, as he is a master with both.
Other items: He is not one for sentimentality, however he has always carried around the knife his mother gave him as a boy. He never uses it, but it is always strapped to his right leg.
Currency: He is far from what we would call frugal, and though he has a rather steady income as a merc, he spends it quickly. At present, he has just $500 to his name.
"What is society?"
"...society is a stupendous whole."
"If you line a hundred zero's in a row, it is still nothing."
Although, I do love this part: Kind of a double edged sword, ya know what I mean? If they say that they don't like giving up what they earn, they are immoral. If they endure it, they are suffering for the sake of morality. Huh.
Oh, and: The problem is, it isn't free. The money had to first be earned before it was expropriated.
Incidentallly, how would your "socialized democracy" work?
And another thing...you complain when school starts at 8?!?!?!? I would kill for school to start at 8. As it stands, it starts before 7.
@Matt- We've locked the pearly white door at the base of the tower- you may never return to the outside world!!
You constantly focus on the one aspect of that whole thing that mattered least: the analogy. It is not just criminals whom I scorn, get that into your head. It is everyone who believes that they are entitled to something they didn't earn. You asked why I consider a gov't program like this evil? Because it is a gov't program, meaning they took the money from those who earned it to give it to those who didn't. To further explain, let's look at fadeblue's remark: I consider life to be a right. Money, however, is a privilege to be earned, like any other. You think all are entitled to a decent life, ie a decent paycheck? Provided by whom? By those who earned it in the first place. I do support pure capitalism, as it is the only system to guarentee true social justice. Have I ever said it was equal? If I have, I apologize now, for that was not my intended message. However, I do believe that economic situations have far less effect than people seem to believe.
You are all working under the premise that everyone is entitled to a home and food. A fine notion: people should have those things...but not those who didn't earn it at the expense of those who did.[/quote]
Ok, guys, how bout we start a majority voting system from now on. Prizm could be our last free-admittance member. Anyone mind?
Ok, well, I'll update the clan HQ thread, and then I've got to head to work.
Such a government, one that offers nothing, is exactly what a gov't should be.
Here, in a few words, is the contradiction inherent in communism:
The idea of communism rests on the ideal of social justice, and equality. But don't you know that they are opposites? What is justice, but recieving what one has earned? If a criminal goes to prison, he is getting what he earns. If a murderer is killed, he is getting what he earns. In society, working and earning money, and then keeping that money, is justice. So for a government to have the audacity to take some people's money, and give it to others, thus creating equality, it is practicing a stark injustice. Further, a gov't based on the idea of need over everything else is immediately shouting out their unjust nature: when you say that need is a claim, you are saying that wealth belongs to those who cannot earn it, cannot justly acquire it. Their only claim is that they cannot justly lay a claim...this you consider the perfect gov't?
Communism, by it's very nature, suppresses ability, intelligence: the things that create wealth. It places on its shoulders the weak, the stupid, the lazy---and hails them as the best. This is just?
It's been confirmed: I can remain moderately active here, as I can post at school. At home is a different story, but I can remain active enough to remain clan leader
Okay; we need to decide how many more members we accept before we become snotty and exclusive. We now stand at myself and 9 other members.
I need a banner. I hope I can describe it well.
I want a picture of the white tower form LotR, preferably on a sunny-day backround.
In front of it I want, in blue letters, "The Ivory Tower"
If you could do that, it would be great.
The question is: What is your ideal form of government?
Include:
Why?
How would it work?
How would you restructure the United States(or where ever you're from) to fit this?
One stipulation: By "ideal", I also mean practical. An impractical government(eg pure anarchy) is not worth discussing. Keep the conversation to ideal AND possible. I don't want to here: "Well, I like [insert gov't here], but damned human nature makes it impossible."
Do we have any other classical afficionados?