|
Post by Denithar on Nov 23, 2006 13:33:51 GMT -5
I'm not well versed in economics, but I'll participate in the debate if there is not enough people. The original question, posed by someone with a name that started with J I think, was whether the rich should have to give to the poor. Rather blunt way of putting it, but we'll start there. The questions that the issue raises are whether giving to the poor helps them or hurts them (does it make them rely on the government instead of themselves), whether there is a plan of doing this that is workable and sensible, and then the moral question of whether it is the duty of us who are better off to give to the poor. Modification: The word that so confused our poor John is corrected.
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Post by Spinner on Nov 24, 2006 20:28:18 GMT -5
you know...carl marx who thought up of communism and socialism had a flaw in his ideal society.... so that is why I cannot think a communist view would be possible....
|
|
|
Post by Denithar on Nov 24, 2006 21:40:11 GMT -5
I'm certainly not going to argue for Carl Marx, being myself a solid conservative, but every society has a flaw. Communist and socialist thought still pervades the world.
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Post by Spinner on Nov 25, 2006 11:07:14 GMT -5
yeah... i mean, a socialist community is so appealing because it is a world without social stratification and with total equality, and yet it is assuming that everyone wants to be equal. And this goes against one of man's basic drives - the drive for power.
|
|
|
Post by Denithar on Nov 25, 2006 11:19:39 GMT -5
You mean the ideal of a socialist community is appealing. The real thing is not. Because socialism is horrible economics. The governments are famously inept when they take the job of private business.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 25, 2006 15:27:03 GMT -5
I personally think it depends on the individual person you are trying to help, and what sort of ideas should be exercised at any point in time in a country should be determined by what type of person that makes up the majority of the poor.
I tend to lean on the more conservative side of this debate, merely because of the many individuals I have known in my lifetime. I have known people who do everything possible to take the easy road in life, which, for them, means taking everything they can possibly get from people, charities, and the government. I have even known people to have children just so that they can get more food stamps and other government benefits. I once knew a woman who bragged about intentionally flunking a government-issued test so that she could get a check for being mentally defective. I also know a man who had a seizure, blamed it on the military (which, I can assure you, did not cause him any health problems he was claiming he had), and wormed out 100% disability (which means he gets a huge check in the mail every month and isn't allowed to have a job); this is also a man who had absolutely no trouble building his own house when he was in his late fifties, which is very odd for someone who is so entirely "disabled", no? Con artists are more common than people realize or like to think. There are, of course, those who are truly in need, though that shouldn't be nearly as common as it used to be because there are so many educational and training options available to virtually everybody. One think I have noticed, however, is that the people who need the help tend to have too much pride to take it, so the help that is being given out often doesn't reach those for whom it was originally intended.
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Post by Spinner on Nov 25, 2006 21:03:35 GMT -5
You mean the ideal of a socialist community is appealing. The real thing is not. Because socialism is horrible economics. The governments are famously inept when they take the job of private business. I don't think socialism is bad economics. Well it is but that wouldn't be an issue if it were really a socialist community. I still maintain that the ideal government(is it?) would be socialism but that is provided everyone cooperates accordingliy....
|
|
|
Post by Gil Alexander on Nov 25, 2006 21:13:43 GMT -5
I actually think socialism and/or communism could work. Not everything works brilliantly on its first time, like in Soviet Russia. It should also be kept in mind that many people were very critical of capitalism as it rose in popularity during the Enlightenment.
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Post by Spinner on Nov 25, 2006 21:15:09 GMT -5
^^ It could but will never work.. It still is and probably will always be the ideal society, and yet again it is all assuming that everyone wants to be equal in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Denithar on Nov 25, 2006 22:14:20 GMT -5
You don't think socialism is bad economics? Explain how making the government in charge of all production is not bad economics. You will fail. And stop talking of ideals and pie in the sky. Work with reality my dear chap.
|
|
|
Post by Gil Alexander on Nov 25, 2006 23:26:31 GMT -5
The Soviet Union's economy did very well; it was one of the top 3 manufacturers of a wide number of basic industrial products in the entire world. I don't know what else I can say, not being well versed in economics to disprove your theory that socialism is, as you say, "bad economics." A possibility for some of the rebelling nations in places like Latin America would be to try to adopt that socialism, but keeping a democratic base behind it, and that could be a bigger challenge.
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Post by Spinner on Nov 26, 2006 8:13:58 GMT -5
^^there you go and to think, that was just communism.. the transition towards socialism... I am not pro-socialism by the way... I'd say it is naively optimistic...
|
|
|
Post by Denithar on Nov 26, 2006 11:43:08 GMT -5
You have a strange opinion of doing "very well". They did very well at the cost of human life and dignity. To quote Scott Shane concerning Soviet socialism: “This economy without markets and their constant flow of information, this strange species so fraught with paradox, did not spring magically into existence after 1917. It was built, on orders from the state, with brutal force and at great cost in human lives” (p. 86 from the book Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union).
|
|
|
Post by Gil Alexander on Nov 26, 2006 13:45:05 GMT -5
I know that, but I thought the question was about the economy, and the economy did do well. However, it lacked that democratic base, which was why it cost so many lives.
I know that communism could work; it would just be extremely difficult. Part of the problem, actually is the word communism, because so many people are afraid of it from the Red Scares and from the McCarthy trials. Maybe the only thing that needs to change are people's attitudes.
|
|
|
Post by Denithar on Nov 26, 2006 14:59:45 GMT -5
There is no democratic base to a communist economy! Socialist economics only works if there is an elite ruling class who controls the lives of the rest.
And I say you're wrong.
And again, you're wrong. Explain to me how a socialist economy would work without taking away the freedom that I personally will never give up.
|
|