Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[Walker]

It is like 'these people' could not even get more closed nor become more stupid.

Come on now Age.
You wrote that, not me.
Don't go eroding the Trust of Dialogue.

[Age]

Oh, don't be such a Negative Nellie.
Once you accept objective reality, it all falls into place.

*

Reality exists in the here and now, where the effects of now and then are considered.

For an American, presumably in America, the here and now is America, and when the greatest place on the face of the earth is where you are here and now, well there you have it.

See how incorrigible it really is

When an American is living in the greatest place on the face of the earth, then memories or hearsay about England is not the greatest place on the face of the earth here and now. Memories or hearsay about England are simply … Then. (The past and future).

Are native-born English now a minority in England, or soon to be? There’s plenty of English folks in American media because English folks talk so purdy. So, who are the English, those who are staying or those who are getting out when winter is closing in?

As everyone knows, because America is a melting pot, America is a state of mind. Democrats ignoring immigration laws tossed out the baby with the melting pot, and invited in mass migration, millions on the express route, with no intentions of assimilating into the culture, or amalgamating their own ways into the new culture, and no requirement to make Vows before God and other witnesses to pledge allegiance to their new home ... which is why so many flags of other countries are now flown.

Instead, conquering and replacing the invaded culture, first in enclaves such as Minneapolis USA, and in England and Europe, non-assimilating culture replacers prey on the morality of the good and generous American state of mind and the good, moral English people. The invaders focus on symbols of conquest, such as flags, allegiance to other countries, sucking up the resources (the dole and housing) ... and turning empty Christian churches into unintended places of worship.

Once again, 'this one', still, can not produce a single thing, which backs up and supports its laughable claim.

Anyway, notice like the other incorrigible one, here, which uses the behaviour of the devil, in attempts of deflection and deception, so too does 'this one', also.

[Age]

Age, a suggestion, to smooth continuity.

Quote me the way I quoted you in the last posting, with that little blue arrow.

Suggesting that others use your same types of attempts at deception is not really the smartest thing that you could have done, here.

[Age]

It is like 'these people' could not even get more closed nor become more stupid.

Come on now Age.
You wrote that, not me.
Don't go eroding the Trust of Dialogue.

Thank you, profusely, for pointing out my obvious error.

Already Corrected. Thank you, again.

[Immanuel Can]

Take the total world income, divide it by the number of people on the planet, and what you get is an income just under $10,000/year.

Who taught you that socialism necessarily means taking the total world income and dividing it by the total number of people on the planet?

Socialists did. They're inevitably globalists -- unless they want to restrict "equity" to their own country, in which case, they're National Socialists, or Nazis. And I'm not assuming you're one of those.

We're not talking about making everyone exactly financially equal.

That's exactlly what Socialist "redistribution" promises. Everybody gets an equal share. Nobody has "privilege." No more "hierarchy." And total "inclusion." Don't you watch their language?

We're talking about society taxing the wealthy some of their wealth in order to help pay for social programs for the extremely poor who experience homelessness and destitution.

Well, you should be happy, then. That already happens. I was under the delusion that you were mad that people had more money than you.

So you're no longer a Socialist. Congratulations.

[MikeNovack]

[
Instead, conquering and replacing the invaded culture, first in enclaves such as Minneapolis USA, and in England and Europe, non-assimilating culture replacers prey on the morality of the good and generous American state of mind and the good, moral English people. The invaders focus on symbols of conquest, such as flags, allegiance to other countries, sucking up the resources (the dole and housing) ... and turning empty Christian churches into unintended places of worship.

You do realize, that THIS EXACT COMPLAINT made against every prior wave of immigration into the US. On one hand, you seem to recognize that in reality, the "melting pot"worked. On the other, you are convinced that this time it won't. Why? << take into accunt that if the same arguments as were made against the prior wave, reason to doubt >>

[MikeNovack]

Socialists did. They're inevitably globalists -- unless they want to restrict "equity" to their own country, in which case, they're National Socialists, or Nazis. And I'm not assuming you're one of those.

Hold that thought until we addressed "national socialism" (in theory) vs NAZI practice. That is how we must explain the actions of John Rabe who was only exposed to the theory (he was in China before WW I). He saw himself as a proper "national socialist". It's not just his personal actions protecting Chinese women from the Japanese but his (vain) expectations that he could get Hitler to act to reign in Japanese atrocities.

In theory, "national socialism" is just about the UNIT under one socialistsystem, not saying that there might not be other such units of socialism. This is an argument about CULTURE, whether different cultures might each want their socialist societies to be different according to cultural differences. That we have only one example (the NAZIs) gets in the way of our being able to see that. Compare/contrast with my earlier model of a possible "communism" based on the "commune" as the fundamental unit << that had "communism" AND "free markets" >>

BUT -- quite right, the traditional left argues for internationalism precisely because of the NAZIs (likewise refuses to lookat the theoretical level)

[Immanuel Can]

Socialists did. They're inevitably globalists -- unless they want to restrict "equity" to their own country, in which case, they're National Socialists, or Nazis. And I'm not assuming you're one of those.

...there might not be other such units of socialism.

Let's see if that's true.

We'll have to explain how, according to Socialism itself, it can strive for equity within one country, but not in the neighbouring country or anywhere else in the world. Is Socialism a theory only for, say, Germany, but not for France? Is it a theory for Europe, but completely irrelevant in Africa or Asia or South America or North America?

And if a Socialist system competes with a "capitalist" economy, how long will it last? Look at how the economy of Soviet Russia collapsed, or how the Chinese economy went into the tank until they adopted "Red Capitalism" as policy, or how well North Korea is able to compete with South Korea in producing prosperity for the people. Look at what happened to Zimbabwe, after Socialist land redistribution. Look at Cuba. Look at what happens to every economy that adopts "redistributive" policies. It's 100% a disaster, and none of them can compete with even a modest "capitalist" economy.

So Socialism requires not only that one country be Socialist, but that the world must be. And its conception of "social justice" backs this very thing: open borders, redistributive "justice," government ownership of all means of production, no open markets at all...

BUT -- quite right, the traditional left argues for internationalism precisely because of the NAZIs (likewise refuses to lookat the theoretical level)

However, you reject their position? And you argue instead for Socialism for the US, but "capitalism" permissible for all other places? It would be hard not to see this as a form of American National Socialism, would it not? And how do we imagine the US would do on the international markets, competing against "capitalist" rivals? How has that worked out, historically?

And the key problem remains: in a Socialist economy, from where is the money going to come to fund State responsibility for everything? Gary has vastly overestimated the amount of money that is available, when set against the population among which it is distributed. And even worse, he's failed to figure out how even that income would be made sustainable, since Socialism kills all capital-generating sources by disincentivizing things like entrepreneurship, innovation, technological development, speculation, efficiency, invention and investment. When one is put on a fixed income, and a guaranteed one, at that, what is one's incentive for adding value by working harder or by taking personal risks to produce progress?

So with not enough money, and no longer any incentives for the production of wealth, what kind of future does a Socialist revolution actually promise us? The truth is that Socialists are grand at criticizing the status quo, but utterly incompetent at solutions. And that's a serious problem.

[Alexiev]

Socialists did. They're inevitably globalists -- unless they want to restrict "equity" to their own country, in which case, they're National Socialists, or Nazis. And I'm not assuming you're one of those.

...there might not be other such units of socialism.

Let's see if that's true.

We'll have to explain how, according to Socialism itself, it can strive for equity within one country, but not in the neighbouring country or anywhere else in the world. Is Socialism a theory only for, say, Germany, but not for France? Is it a theory for Europe, but completely irrelevant in Africa or Asia or South America or North America?

And if a Socialist system competes with a "capitalist" economy, how long will it last? Look at how the economy of Soviet Russia collapsed, or how the Chinese economy went into the tank until they adopted "Red Capitalism" as policy, or how well North Korea is able to compete with South Korea in producing prosperity for the people. Look at what happened to Zimbabwe, after Socialist land redistribution. Look at Cuba. Look at what happens to every economy that adopts "redistributive" policies. It's 100% a disaster, and none of them can compete with even a modest "capitalist" economy.

So Socialism requires not only that one country be Socialist, but that the world must be. And its conception of "social justice" backs this very thing: open borders, redistributive "justice," government ownership of all means of production, no open markets at all...

BUT -- quite right, the traditional left argues for internationalism precisely because of the NAZIs (likewise refuses to lookat the theoretical level)

However, you reject their position? And you argue instead for Socialism for the US, but "capitalism" permissible for all other places? It would be hard not to see this as a form of American National Socialism, would it not? And how do we imagine the US would do on the international markets, competing against "capitalist" rivals? How has that worked out, historically?

And the key problem remains: in a Socialist economy, from where is the money going to come to fund State responsibility for everything? Gary has vastly overestimated the amount of money that is available, when set against the population among which it is distributed. And even worse, he's failed to figure out how even that income would be made sustainable, since Socialism kills all capital-generating sources by disincentivizing things like entrepreneurship, innovation, technological development, speculation, efficiency, invention and investment. When one is put on a fixed income, and a guaranteed one, at that, what is one's incentive for adding value by working harder or by taking personal risks to produce progress?

So with not enough money, and no longer any incentives for the production of wealth, what kind of future does a Socialist revolution actually promise us? The truth is that Socialists are grand at criticizing the status quo, but utterly incompetent at solutions. And that's a serious problem.

Y0u are making this stuff up, IC. According to Wiki (I did a 30 second search), " From the Stalin-era to the early Brezhnev-era, the Soviet economy grew slower than Japan and faster than the United States." Hmmm. I suppose that was true even though half the country was razed and 20 million people were killed during WW2.

Of course it is also true that the richest nations tend to be bastions of Capitalism. Perhaps poverty and starvation fuel revolutions, instead of revolutionary governments creating poverty and starvation.

By the way, the GDP per capita in China is 5 times that of India. Hmmm. The two most populous countries in the world; one capitalistic, the other still largely communistic.

Also, since when is Christianity nationalistic? It is true, of course that if wealth is redistributed without regard to national boundaries, people living in rich countries would become far poorer. And who cares about those silly Christians in Burundi or Madagascar (let alone those infidel Muslims in Afghanistan or South Sudan)? Let them starve, if we can keep our SUVs, computers, and TVs.

Your example of Cuba is ludicrous. Of course the U.S. trade embargo hurt the Cuban economy. Maybe if we'd treat our Communist neighbors with more kindness and respect communism would have a fair chance. Despite the nearby major power refusing to trade with it, Cuba maintained the well being of its citizens (by several measures) better than many of its Caribbean neighbors.

The trite nonsense about incentive is a Capitalist myth. People care more about social rewards than monetary ones -- although in the U.S. we have managed to tie social status and wealth so closely together that people who want the status must work for the wealth.

[Immanuel Can]

...there might not be other such units of socialism.

Let's see if that's true.

We'll have to explain how, according to Socialism itself, it can strive for equity within one country, but not in the neighbouring country or anywhere else in the world. Is Socialism a theory only for, say, Germany, but not for France? Is it a theory for Europe, but completely irrelevant in Africa or Asia or South America or North America?

And if a Socialist system competes with a "capitalist" economy, how long will it last? Look at how the economy of Soviet Russia collapsed, or how the Chinese economy went into the tank until they adopted "Red Capitalism" as policy, or how well North Korea is able to compete with South Korea in producing prosperity for the people. Look at what happened to Zimbabwe, after Socialist land redistribution. Look at Cuba. Look at what happens to every economy that adopts "redistributive" policies. It's 100% a disaster, and none of them can compete with even a modest "capitalist" economy.

So Socialism requires not only that one country be Socialist, but that the world must be. And its conception of "social justice" backs this very thing: open borders, redistributive "justice," government ownership of all means of production, no open markets at all...

BUT -- quite right, the traditional left argues for internationalism precisely because of the NAZIs (likewise refuses to lookat the theoretical level)

However, you reject their position? And you argue instead for Socialism for the US, but "capitalism" permissible for all other places? It would be hard not to see this as a form of American National Socialism, would it not? And how do we imagine the US would do on the international markets, competing against "capitalist" rivals? How has that worked out, historically?

And the key problem remains: in a Socialist economy, from where is the money going to come to fund State responsibility for everything? Gary has vastly overestimated the amount of money that is available, when set against the population among which it is distributed. And even worse, he's failed to figure out how even that income would be made sustainable, since Socialism kills all capital-generating sources by disincentivizing things like entrepreneurship, innovation, technological development, speculation, efficiency, invention and investment. When one is put on a fixed income, and a guaranteed one, at that, what is one's incentive for adding value by working harder or by taking personal risks to produce progress?

So with not enough money, and no longer any incentives for the production of wealth, what kind of future does a Socialist revolution actually promise us? The truth is that Socialists are grand at criticizing the status quo, but utterly incompetent at solutions. And that's a serious problem.

Of course it is also true that the richest nations tend to be bastions of Capitalism. Perhaps poverty and starvation fuel revolutions, instead of revolutionary governments creating poverty and starvation.

No, we can definitely confirm that every "revolutionary" or Socialist government has created massive poverty, starvation, human rights abuses, constraint of liberties...and financial collapse. That's why Socialists don't want us to remember history, of course.

By the way, the GDP per capita in China is 5 times that of India. Hmmm.

But under "Red Capitalism." So what China has done is to keep the totalitarian Socialist regime, but to employ "capitalism" to produce wealth. In other words, they've conceded exactly what I said is true: that Socialism fails to produce wealth or economic security. Compare the Maoist regime to the "Red Capitalism" period, and you'll see that illustrated spectacularly.

But this is a mistake shared by both "capitalists" and Socialists: the belief that the two systems are actual opposites. Socialism treats "capitalism" as the hated enemy, but then finds that it cannot survive without that enemy, and not merely as an enemy, but as the only possible tool of shoring up its system. And "capitalists" made the mistake of thinking that one could not use "capitalism" to fund a totalitarian regime, and that freedom would automatically spring out of "capitalism." And both were wrong, it seems...at least in the Chinese case.

Also, since when is Christianity nationalistic?

Never. And nobody said it was, at least here.

It is true, of course that if wealth is redistributed without regard to national boundaries, people living in rich countries would become far poorer. And who cares about those silly Christians in Burundi or Madagascar (let alone those infidel Muslims in Afghanistan or South Sudan)? Let them starve, if we can keep our SUVs, computers, and TVs.

But that's a false dichotomy, of course. It is not the case that we are stuck with "Give them Socialism, or let them starve." In fact, Socialism will not feed them anyway, at least, not for long. Consider the Holomodor as a historical example of that kind of failure.

No, the better alternative is to empower them to engage free markets. It's a thing called, "sustainable development," which has produces nothing less than a miracle in many developing nations. Essentially, it's bringing the poor into economic opportunity through small business methods. It goes under other names, too: "micro-enterprise," "micro-loans," "sustainable farming," "micro-schools," and so on. And that's the solution I would back: not to ignore the poor, far less to subject them to the unbelievable tyranny and incompetence of Socialist redistribution, but rather to engage their creativity and entrepreneurship to raise people out of poverty by dignified, sustainable and local means.

And it works. It's hugely successful.

Cuba maintained the well being of its citizens...

You never visited, it's clear. I did. It's been a tyrannical, semi-impoverished regime from the start. And it's totally incompetently governed, by a Party that can never be unseated except by violent revolution, which they work assiduously to suppress. And its people have always been ill-fed, heavily propagandized and trapped within limited means, ruled over by a tyrannical government of nasty despots.

People care more about social rewards than monetary ones

Some do. Most don't. As you point out, in most people's minds, the two are fused. To have money is, in their view, to be able to avail oneself of social rewards; and to have social rewards without money is to starve.

Ironic point: Socialists are both hugely preoccupied with money (as in, "hate the rich"), and totally ignorant of sound economics (as in, "if we redistribute, we'll all end up rich").

Big point: don't talk to a Socialist about economics. They don't know anything.

[Alexiev]

IN the U.S. the 10% richest people own 67% of the wealth. The GDP per capita is about $85k per year (there are several different measures).

Let's posit 100 people, whose wealth (by this measure) is $8,500,000. $5,695k goes to the top 10% -- that's $590K PER PERSON PER YEAR. The rest is divided up by the remaining 90 people. That's $31.16k per person per year. Of course this is also stratified, so the lowest 30% get far less.

Two questions: whom should we tax? Can't the upper 10% afford to pay? And can't the lowest 30% ill-afford to pay?

Next question: what social services might help conduce a stable society that prevents Communist revolutions and promotes safety and welfare for all? Wouldn't those include food stamps or welfare?

Third question: Who benefits from these programs? Obviously, the recipients benefit, but don't the upper 10%, who are living off the largesse of a stable society, benefit as well?

The answers are, of course, obvious. That's why every rich, capitalist country has some "socialist" safety net programs, although most have better ones than the U.S.

[Gary Childress]

Take the total world income, divide it by the number of people on the planet, and what you get is an income just under $10,000/year.

Who taught you that socialism necessarily means taking the total world income and dividing it by the total number of people on the planet?

Socialists did. They're inevitably globalists -- unless they want to restrict "equity" to their own country, in which case, they're National Socialists, or Nazis. And I'm not assuming you're one of those.

We're not talking about making everyone exactly financially equal.

That's exactlly what Socialist "redistribution" promises. Everybody gets an equal share. Nobody has "privilege." No more "hierarchy." And total "inclusion." Don't you watch their language?

We're talking about society taxing the wealthy some of their wealth in order to help pay for social programs for the extremely poor who experience homelessness and destitution.

Well, you should be happy, then. That already happens. I was under the delusion that you were mad that people had more money than you.

So you're no longer a Socialist. Congratulations.

Fair enough. Congratulations on not believing that all taxation is theft. You seemed to state the opposite prior to this.

[Immanuel Can]

Congratulations on not believing that all taxation is theft. You seemed to state the opposite prior to this.

No, I've said all along that some government is a necessary evil, and that some taxation, for things such as infrastructure and civil defense, is necessary. But I've said that it should be minimal. So that's been my position all along.

[MikeNovack]

a)We'll have to explain how, according to Socialism itself, it can strive for equity within one country, but not in the neighbouring country or anywhere else in the world. Is Socialism a theory only for, say, Germany, but not for France? Is it a theory for Europe, but completely irrelevant in Africa or Asia or South America or North America?

b)And if a Socialist system competes with a "capitalist" economy, how long will it last? Look at how the economy of Soviet Russia collapsed, or how the Chinese economy went into the tank until they adopted "Red Capitalism" as policy, or how well North Korea is able to compete with South Korea in producing prosperity for the people. Look at what happened to Zimbabwe, after Socialist land redistribution. Look at Cuba. Look at what happens to every economy that adopts "redistributive" policies. It's 100% a disaster, and none of them can compete with even a modest "capitalist" economy.

c)So Socialism requires not only that one country be Socialist, but that the world must be. And its conception of "social justice" backs this very thing: open borders, redistributive "justice," government ownership of all means of production, no open markets at all...

a) NOT necessarily what was meant. This is about democracy and what UNIT we want it applied on. Certainly valid for us to decide "socialism is what WE want" and to prefer if a neighboring country decided likewise but at the same time to hold "but that's THEIR right to choose". I am simply not a "one worlder". I do not think diversity bad?

b) Might I humbly suggest that we won the cold war because Chernoibyl went one way and Three Mile Island the other. Reverse those outcomes and maybe it would have been us collapsing instead. And a lot of "mixed economies" doing quite well, thank you << will address "pure capitalist free market" later.>>

c) Your "c" depends on your "b"

OK, arguments that pure socialism won't work can be applied to pure market place capitalism, won't work either. If you ever took a free market capitalist oriented "Economics 101"your course probably began with the rules of thumb for free markets to work properly. Rules like the minimum number of producers and consumers, that none of these made up more than a certain fraction of the whole, that it was possible for consumers or producers to respond to changes in supply vs demand in timely fashion, etc.

And then the course would proceed ignoring the reality that in many cases one or more of the necessary conditions would not be met. That free markets would be unable to adjust to bring things back into balance (as free market theory calls for). So that in THESE cases, some sorts of regulation would be required. In other words, SOME "socialism" introduced.

Do folks think I need to give examples? << say why free markets work reasonably well for "pork" but poorly to not at all for "milk" >>

I would classify those who believe in pure free market capitalism just as much fools. I think all here arguing against socialism are really arguing against "too much socialism" << they are wearing blinders not recognizing that many of the adjustments to free market capitalism they accept as proper/necessary ARE "socialism".

[Immanuel Can]

I am simply not a "one worlder".

Well, that's good: because it's a doomed prospect, and as you suggest, would eliminate a whole lot of 'diversity.'

Mind you, I don't see how "diversity" is ever a virtue, in itself. To say something is "diverse" can mean it is, as some would prefer us to think, "interestingly various," or "free," or "able to access different views," or "enriching." But "diverse" also means, "incoherent," or "cacophonic," or "disordered," or "relativistic," or "torn by sectarian strife," or "irreconcilable," or "fragmented," or any number of other bad things.

So any appeal to the moral virtue of "diversity" has to be filled out with a coherent explanation of what is "diverse" and what is to be unified.

b) Might I humbly suggest that we won the cold war because Chernoibyl went one way and Three Mile Island the other.

Chernobyl? I've never hear even one person suggest that had anything to do with the collapse of the Russian Empire. Rather, I think that disaster was a symptom, but not a cause. Nor would I think that if Three Mile Island had been worse, the US would have collapsed. Rather, the bad Socialst economics of the USSR killed the Russian Empire. It fell because it was utterly unsustainable economically, not because one reactor went bust.

That free markets would be unable to adjust to bring things back into balance (as free market theory calls for). So that in THESE cases, some sorts of regulation would be required. In other words, SOME "socialism" introduced.

Socialism is a totalizing doctrine. There's no sense in speaking of "some Socialism," anymore than there is of speaking of "some pregnancy." Socialism by definition requires State ownership of all the means of production. And some market regulation by law is not at all indicative of "some Socialism." It merely happens because everything human beings do is flawed in some way; and we try to balance that with laws protecting the rights of private citizens.

There's nothing "Socialist" about that. One can do it with a constitution, an oversight body, a local council, or a set of general market regulations...one needs no speck of the ideological rubbish that's bound up in the term "Socialism."