Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Again, do you challenge my contention that Socialism is all about the government forcibly taking one person's money and giving it to somebody else? Just a simple yes or no will suffice if you don't mind.

I believe most are thinking of the actuality of it once it's in place, not how to go about transitioning from our current selfish greedy capitalist systems to the more cooperative, compassionate, loving, and selfless, 'all for one, one for all' mentality.

Just remember, it's what you call a selfish, greedy, capitalist system that has undoubtedly improved your own standard of living, and I doubt you're willing to voluntarily give it all up in the name of "socialism."

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Again, do you challenge my contention that Socialism is all about the government forcibly taking one person's money and giving it to somebody else? Just a simple yes or no will suffice if you don't mind.

I believe most are thinking of the actuality of it once it's in place, not how to go about transitioning from our current selfish greedy capitalist systems to the more cooperative, compassionate, loving, and selfless, 'all for one, one for all' mentality.

Just remember, it's what you call a selfish, greedy, capitalist system that has undoubtedly improved your own standard of living, and I doubt you're willing to voluntarily give it all up in the name of "socialism."

And you've just hit the nail on the head, Bob. That is indeed what you fear! Losing what it is that you have managed to accumulate. And one of the reasons you fear it, is because of all the crap you had to go through to get it. Ever think that you wouldn't have had to go through as much crap to get it, if another system was in place?

In the type system I envision, all get exactly what they need, and they do as they do because they love to do it, not because it pays more. Imagine how much they'd probably be better at it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Ever think that you wouldn't have had to go through as much crap to get it, if another system was in place?

Fortunately, if another system had been in place, there would have been nothing to get and nothing to lose.

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Ever think that you wouldn't have had to go through as much crap to get it, if another system was in place?

Fortunately, if another system had been in place, there would have been nothing to get and nothing to lose.

I don't see that at all! Just because I want to play a guitar in a capitalist society, and I can buy and play one, doesn't mean that guitars shall disappear from the face of the earth, where everyone is equal and shares everything. It just means that I will either have to share one with another, make it myself, or wait until one is made for me, as I do something for others.

The quarterback doesn't pay the wide receiver to catch the ball, he catches the ball because of teamwork. Yet each have their own job to do on the team

Of course you can have a gee-tar in a socialism!

First, you must apply with the local Bureau of Music for a license to use (but never own) a gee-tar, and simultaneously file a request for (musical) apitude testing.

If you pass the test (given six months to a year after making the request), and if your bent is in the direction of the gee-tar, you can expect to recieve your very own (but not really yours) gee-tar two to five years after filing for your use-license.

The license can be revoked at any time, by any high ranking party member, for any (or, no) reason at all. Also, you may be required to play the gee-tar here or there at the direction of high ranking party members (and, if you're a pretty girl or boy, you may have other 'duties' to perform).

'tis the will of 'the people'.

bobevenson wrote:Thank you for your support.

As mental as Bill.

Gary Childress wrote:

Melchior wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:Many of us like to think we are rugged individuals looking out for ourselves but I think some may be surprised at how much is done in the name of compassion. An average worker may do their job with the utmost care and expedience not necessarily always or only because they are afraid of being fired but because they care about the impact their job has on others and the community. It's a profound pessimism to say that everyone should just look out for themselves and we must always be on guard. Some level of trust in the good nature of others might be healthy I would think.

Read Ayn Rand.

I've read bits and parts of Ayn Rand's writings. Is there anything in particular you recommend?

The Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead

Melchior wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Melchior wrote:Read Ayn Rand.

I've read bits and parts of Ayn Rand's writings. Is there anything in particular you recommend?

The Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead

With all due respect, what is special about those books? Or what do you find appealing or important about them? What message do you see them as communicating that is most important for others to be aware of? I haven't read them but I'm somewhat familiar with their themes from reading about them from critics and reviewers.

EDIT: And thank you for replying to my previous post above.

Gary,

Read Max Stirner's The Individual and His Property.

henry quirk wrote:Gary,

Read Max Stirner's The Individual and His Property.

Is that The Ego and Its Own?

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Thank you for your support.

As mental as Bill.

Earlier I said

Again, do you challenge my contention that Socialism is all about the government forcibly taking one person's money and giving it to somebody else? Just a simple yes or no will suffice if you don't mind.

You said

No.

I said

Thank you for your support.

You now say

As mental as Bill.

I ask you, who is as mental as Bill, you or me?

Looks like I'm the mental one next to Bill in this case. So I retract my 'no' as it should have been a yes, as in no I don't think Socialism is all about the government forcibly taking one person's money and giving it to somebody else.

Although your fonting keeps you up there alongside him.

Arising_uk wrote:Looks like I'm the mental one next to Bill in this case. So I retract my 'no' as it should have been a yes, as in no I don't think Socialism is all about the government forcibly taking one person's money and giving it to somebody else.

Although your fonting keeps you up there alongside him.

Talk about grasping at straws!

Gary Childress wrote:
With all due respect, what is special about those books? Or what do you find appealing or important about them? What message do you see them as communicating that is most important for others to be aware of? I haven't read them but I'm somewhat familiar with their themes from reading about them from critics and reviewers.

EDIT: And thank you for replying to my previous post above.

Just read them.

bobevenson wrote:Talk about grasping at straws!

I knew you'd be unable to understand an admittance of a mistake as such a thing is an impossibility for you. For example,

bobevenson wrote:Theist, agnostic, atheist. As Bob the Baptist, I can tell you that the first and third are fools, and absolute fools at that.

bobevenson wrote:Anybody who isn't an agnostic is a fool.

So tell us bob are you an agnostic or an absolute fool or would you like to change your words?