Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why is socialism seen as a 'nice' philosophy? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    Simple question. Do you think people would actually work in Socialism, I mean all I hear from managers nowadays that the low income poeple work 40 hours to begin with, come late, talk all the time and always protest. Now imagine how much they d work in Socialism, probably nothing.
    Second point against why socialism will NEVER, and it doesnt matter what all the desperate, jealous ignorant lefties tell you, the human is by nature, greedy and selfish.
    Do you think there d be 1000 different types of smartphones (just an example of what capitalistic competition got us) in socialism,no, there d probably wouldnt even be a mobile, why would there be one? And if there would be one than you d have to wait 3 years for it. Not to mention how technological advances would be in Socialsm = 0.
    Besides, only Capitalism is pure freedom. No one can come to your house and tell you that you have to give him something because in his eyes you have too much. But the problem is that socialists are in 99% cases very unintelligent. Thats why it doesnt really make sense to argue with them. It s always such a pain, its like explaining an ignorant stupid child that eating vegetables is good for him.
    Capitalist education hasn't done very much for your grasp on the English language...

    Anyway- this constant cry from the right that socialism simply makes everybody lazy is nonsense. Socialism basically advocates that the workers own the means of production and distribution. That means that if anything they are more directly affected by how efficient and productive they are.

    As I stated earlier I'm not a student of politics or history but I don't think there has ever been very few truly socialist societies. Lenin dismantled Socialism in Russia and basically implemented a sort of state capitalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    Capitalist education hasn't done very much for your grasp on the English language...

    Anyway- this constant cry from the right that socialism simply makes everybody lazy is nonsense. Socialism basically advocates that the workers own the means of production and distribution. That means that if anything they are more directly affected by how efficient and productive they are.

    As I stated earlier I'm not a student of politics or history but I don't think there has ever been very few truly socialist societies. Lenin dismantled Socialism in Russia and basically implemented a sort of state capitalism.
    Regarding capitalistic education--- it has actually done a lot for me. Unconditional offer for Economics from Cambridge, LSE , UCL and St.Andrews. ( I provided proof of that in another forum). Why? Because as a capitalist I actually believe in hard work, ambition, determination and meritocracy, and not blaming my misery on others.

    I m sorry to say this, but you probably dont have enough life experience or work experience to realise that the point that socialism and communism leads tooo EXTREM laziness is 100% right. I did internships in the following firms: BMW, IMB, GE, Siemens and Coca Cola company, always in multiples departments, I ve thus probably met hundreds of these "workers" and my honest and totally unbiased, I swear on Jesus, is that 99% of them were very lazy (there were some, but very very very few exceptions) and these were very different companies, in different countries, in different departments and the observation was ALWAYS the same. Now, imagine how much these people would work in socialism, 5 hours a week? Be honest, how many students would study for exams if everyone got the same grade and a B. Noone . There is a actually a nice experiment done at an american university about this.

    You see the problem we have is that capitalism also has many "errors" and thus people that are already worse off shift to the left thinking that it is the solution. If you want freedom, which only capitalism can provid
    e, than you have some negative drawbacks. But the main problem people have is that they believe that everyone can be rich or well off. No, the majority of humanity will always be worse off, just because of our nature=greed and selfishenss and because we are sooooo many people with so little resourses.

    And it is just naive, yes the word is naive, to believe that we would all work together hard, without any self gain from that , this is sooooooooo against the human nature, that its already ridiculous.

    But as I ve stated earlier, is that you generally have these arguments with naive, unexperienced, ignorant and unintelligent people.

    I mean if socialism&communism has been tried 100 times and it always "wasnt the real socialism" doesnt that do click in your brain and you finally perhaps realise (you should actually have realised that much before because of all the other negative aspects it has) that socialism doesnt work.

    I mean even the pure theoretical idea of socialism is ****ed up. Someone that is hard working, creative, brave, intelligent receives the same as someone lazy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Because as bad as that may be, it's at least better than letting people feel the full brunt of the effects of capitalism and the state.
    Capitalism is bad I agree, but only to the extent that the state usurps common resources like land and then dishes them out to the chosen few as private property. I.e socialism and capitalism suffer from the exact same flaws: nepotism, corruption, and an economic system that is heavily skewed in favour of a well placed elite.

    Instead of retaining these injustices and then ameliorating them with welfare; which is enormously costly and prone to fraud, I suggest the sort of root and branch reform that make the need for welfare redundant.



    Yeah, but what it comes down to is ultimately a "lesser evil" question. The suffering caused by a rich person loosing half their income is much smaller than the suffering caused by starvation and not being able to afford life-saving medical treatment.
    But your analysis is based upon an economic regime that is deeply flawed. Yes if we ditched the welfare state under the current system there's a a chance that the poor and unemployed would starve to death on the streets. But if we rearranged things so that common resources like land and water etc were made available to all they'd be less scope for the sort of hardships you mention. People die from a lack of resources mainly because there are barriers in place that prevent them accessing those resources, if those barriers were lifted there would be less economic and humanitarian injustice all round.

    No. It's just the result of people such as liberals merely wanting to reform the system rather than abolish it altogether.

    To quote Leo Tolstoy: "A liberal capitalist is like a kind donkey owner. He'll do everything for the donkey - care for it, feed it, wash it; everything except get off its back".
    This sounds like socialism to me. Socialists will go to the ends of the earth to provide the poor with welfare, but what they won't do is banish the conditions that cause poverty in the first place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    Funny that you quote people that were responsible for the murder of millions of people.
    I don't suppose you have Leo Tolstoy - who was a pacifist and an anarchist - confused with Leon Trotsky, who was a ****.

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    Besdised what tolstoy said is COMPLETE HORSE****.
    I know this is a bit irrelevant to the argument, but are you by any chance saying that because the horse meat scandal means we can't have bull****?

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    If I open a shop or a company, it is MY not yours, or anyone eles right, to determine how much I pay my workers, that work in MY company.
    I'd rather the worker at least had some say in that... but well, that's capitalism for you. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    If they dont want to work in MY company for the wages they can go somewhere else, or they can open up their own company.
    That argument only works if:

    1. There are other employers around who are hiring and actually will treat them better, and that the difference is not miniscule as it usually is.

    2. They have sufficient capital to start their own business.

    Effectively you just have the choice of which master you want, not whether or not to have a master at all.

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    When do lefties start accepting boundaries and personal freedom and property.
    What boundaries? of course I believe in personal freedom, I would bet I do so a lot more than you. I believe in property, just not over he means of production. You have every right to own your house, your car, etc. just not a factory, a farm, etc. unless you're the only one working on them.

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    We are not one big family and I have 0,00000% responsibilty that person x is doing fine.
    Effectively we are... every organism on this planet is related to you, just sayin'. It depends what you mean by responsibility. If there was a guy dying on the street I wouldn't force you to help him (I think I'd be wasting my time anyway), however everybody would hate you if he did die because of your unwillingness to help I would think.

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    Obviously we do not have to go very far, I think we can left politics apart already from the beginning
    If English is your first language, please go back to school...


    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    when they believe in the moooooooooost naive and stupid, childish of arguments of all: all humans are equal. hahhaahhahah
    That isn't true. Your point being?

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    Get a life, stop trying to blame the misery of your situation on others and look why it is like this. Quoting, confused idiots, aka tolstoy, doesnt help much.
    LOL.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    I don't suppose you have Leo Tolstoy - who was a pacifist and an anarchist - confused with Leon Trotsky, who was a ****.



    I know this is a bit irrelevant to the argument, but are you by any chance saying that because the horse meat scandal means we can't have bull****?



    I'd rather the worker at least had some say in that... but well, that's capitalism for you. :rolleyes:



    That argument only works if:

    1. There are other employers around who are hiring and actually will treat them better, and that the difference is not miniscule as it usually is.

    2. They have sufficient capital to start their own business.

    Effectively you just have the choice of which master you want, not whether or not to have a master at all.



    What boundaries? of course I believe in personal freedom, I would bet I do so a lot more than you. I believe in property, just not over he means of production. You have every right to own your house, your car, etc. just not a factory, a farm, etc. unless you're the only one working on them.



    Effectively we are... every organism on this planet is related to you, just sayin'. It depends what you mean by responsibility. If there was a guy dying on the street I wouldn't force you to help him (I think I'd be wasting my time anyway), however everybody would hate you if he did die because of your unwillingness to help I would think.



    If English is your first language, please go back to school...




    That isn't true. Your point being?



    LOL.
    As I have stated before: you get these arguements with naive, unintelligent, unexperienced people, like you.

    You see if you as you said repect somones property and freedom (cars, houses etc.) why would you not respect his own firm and business? Its the entrepreneur that takes the risk, it is him that has the idea, its him that gives his workers money. If all people would think like you there d be no firms at all, because do you think that someone would take all the risk in opening a firm to please his "workers"? PLEEEEEASSEEEE just use your BRAINNN
    And no, in my OWN firm noone except me has to say anthing at all. According to your logic there are two types people. One the entrepreneurs those that take all the risk to create wealth and those that just take nice jobs. You see the evil entrepreneurs have to do all the hard whereas according to your logic the other types of people just have to take jobs that were created by other people and on top of that have rights to determine anything about the jobs. Perhaps, you read a little bit about freedom.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What a useless post. All you've done is personally insult me and reword the OP replacing the word 'socialism' with 'capitalism'. Is that supposed to be clever?

    Try again please and think of something useful to say this time.
    My aim was not to insult you; I didn't "try" to do so, but obviously you've interpreted it that way. I "tried" to indicate the level of ignorance that your post displayed. My post was useful to that extent.

    The point (which you failed to understand) was that your criticism aimed against socialism could equally apply to capitalism, and that criticisms against the two are neither new nor conclusive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Capitalism is bad I agree, but only to the extent that the state usurps common resources like land and then dishes them out to the chosen few as private property.
    I don't suppose you would mind defining capitalism? because capitalism by it's very nature involves private property over land and resources. You're starting to sound a bit like a mutualist.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    I.e socialism and capitalism suffer from the exact same flaws: nepotism, corruption, and an economic system that is heavily skewed in favour of a well placed elite.
    State socialism, sure. That's just the result of the state, it ****s everything up. But while we continue to have a state I just think it's better that the state ****s things up to the least degree.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    Instead of retaining these injustices and then ameliorating them with welfare; which is enormously costly and prone to fraud, I suggest the sort of root and branch reform that make the need for welfare redundant.
    Me too. However, I just think that while we continue to have these injustices, welfare does help deal with the symptoms. It's kind of like how Lemsip wont cure your cold, however it still might stop you sneezing, coughing, etc.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    But if we rearranged things so that common resources like land and water etc were made available to all they'd be less scope for the sort of hardships you mention. People die from a lack of resources mainly because there are barriers in place that prevent them accessing those resources, if those barriers were lifted there would be less economic and humanitarian injustice all round.
    Exactly. The problem is, how exactly do we do that?. The state always fails at doing that and direct action would most likely require more supporters first.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    This sounds like socialism to me. Socialists will go to the ends of the earth to provide the poor with welfare, but what they won't do is banish the conditions that cause poverty in the first place.
    I know. I'm too much of a procrastinator.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    What boundaries? of course I believe in personal freedom, I would bet I do so a lot more than you. I believe in property, just not over he means of production. You have every right to own your house, your car, etc. just not a factory, a farm, etc. unless you're the only one working on them.
    What you're advocating here is theft. If I spend my time and effort creating a bucket (capital) why should anybody else be free to muscle in on my wealth? Make you're own God damn bucket, stop coveting mine. A consequence of your take on capital is that people will eventually stop producing it, why bother when the benefits will be socialised (stolen) anyway? I really believe the left need to go back to the drawing board on this one and ditch the ideology in favour of ideas that simply work, both in principle and in practice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    Regarding capitalistic education--- it has actually done a lot for me. Unconditional offer for Economics from Cambridge, LSE , UCL and St.Andrews. ( I provided proof of that in another forum). Why? Because as a capitalist I actually believe in hard work, ambition, determination and meritocracy, and not blaming my misery on others.

    I m sorry to say this, but you probably dont have enough life experience or work experience to realise that the point that socialism and communism leads tooo EXTREM laziness is 100% right. I did internships in the following firms: BMW, IMB, GE, Siemens and Coca Cola company, always in multiples departments, I ve thus probably met hundreds of these "workers" and my honest and totally unbiased, I swear on Jesus, is that 99% of them were very lazy (there were some, but very very very few exceptions) and these were very different companies, in different countries, in different departments and the observation was ALWAYS the same. Now, imagine how much these people would work in socialism, 5 hours a week? Be honest, how many students would study for exams if everyone got the same grade and a B. Noone . There is a actually a nice experiment done at an american university about this.

    You see the problem we have is that capitalism also has many "errors" and thus people that are already worse off shift to the left thinking that it is the solution. If you want freedom, which only capitalism can provid
    e, than you have some negative drawbacks. But the main problem people have is that they believe that everyone can be rich or well off. No, the majority of humanity will always be worse off, just because of our nature=greed and selfishenss and because we are sooooo many people with so little resourses.

    And it is just naive, yes the word is naive, to believe that we would all work together hard, without any self gain from that , this is sooooooooo against the human nature, that its already ridiculous.

    But as I ve stated earlier, is that you generally have these arguments with naive, unexperienced, ignorant and unintelligent people.

    I mean if socialism&communism has been tried 100 times and it always "wasnt the real socialism" doesnt that do click in your brain and you finally perhaps realise (you should actually have realised that much before because of all the other negative aspects it has) that socialism doesnt work.

    I mean even the pure theoretical idea of socialism is ****ed up. Someone that is hard working, creative, brave, intelligent receives the same as someone lazy.

    You can call me naive if you want but the picture you paint of human nature is bleak and depressing. Forgive me for like you I am ambitious but my ambition is not as self centered or driven by greed.

    You've basically said that socialism doesn't work an capitalism is deeply flawed but we should stick with Darwinian Capitalism 'cos you're doin' just fine! You might dress your cynicism up as worldliness and say I'm wet behind the ears or something but I'm more than happy to use my talents and drive to benefit those around me and my community as well as myself. And I am willing to engage anybody in debate if they are willing to present a vision- either capitalist or socialist in nature that can advance human society, ease suffering and create opportunity.

    Toddle off and do your economics degree. I hope it brings you much material success.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What you're advocating here is theft. If I spend my time and effort creating a bucket (capital) why should anybody else be free to muscle in on my wealth? Make you're own God damn bucket, stop coveting mine. The consequences of your ideas surrounding the means of production is that people will eventually stop producing capital, why bother when the benefits will be socialised (stolen) anyway? I really believe the left need to go back to the drawing board on this one and ditch the ideology in favour of ideas that simply work, both in principle and in practice.
    Dear oh dear...

    Firstly, it makes no sense to talk about "theft" without any conception of an entitlement structure, and entitlement structures are man-made legal systems unique to a particular country. So you first have to argue for the morality of the entitlement system you support before you talk of theft. Your adversary does not accept your entitlement structure - and there are powerful arguments against it - not least that it requires laying claim to raw resources, excluding people from it and taking up finite space with no compensatory contract to other people (and all wealth, even derived from services, is ultimately grounded in somebody's exploitation of a finite resource under their control).

    It's worth mentioning that most, if not all, "social democracies" (where wealth is regularly taxed) such as in Scandanavia, Britain, most of north-western Europe, indeed most of the wealthiest nations, have tax systems (often progressive tax systems!) and a mixed economy, which destroys the assumption that permitting a bit of "theft" (your heavily moralised and value-laden term, not mine) does not do substantial damage to a country's incentive structure, whilst social security systems are able to be financially supported.

    The problem with a lot of social, moral, political and other normative philosophy is that there is a tendency for the weak-minded to endorse extreme, simplistic positions that neglect many nuances that feature in reality.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I don't understand the attraction of socialism.

    If someone approached me and said that they'd offer me free healthcare, cash benefits when I needed them and reasonable level of education etc in return for the right to confiscate my income and impose arbitrary restrictions on my behaviour I wouldn't necessarily think the offer was a nice one. I would think of it more as a poisoned chalice.

    While the left are prepared to wax lyrical about the benefits of socialism they're in denial about all the drawbacks.

    Is it time to take a more rounded view of socialism instead of accepting at face value what the brochure says?
    Yes but the point is some people don't have any income, so for them it's a good deal. And those income-less people are necessary for you to have your income at a level where you feel you can reject the offer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Dear oh dear...

    Firstly, it makes no sense to talk about "theft" without any conception of an entitlement structure, and entitlement structures are man-made legal systems unique to a particular country. So you first have to argue for the morality of the entitlement system you support before you talk of theft. Your adversary does not accept your entitlement structure - and there are powerful arguments against it - not least that it requires laying claim to raw resources, excluding people from it and taking up finite space with no compensatory contract to other people (and all wealth, even derived from services, is ultimately grounded in somebody's exploitation of a finite resource under their control).

    It's worth mentioning that most, if not all, "social democracies" (where wealth is regularly taxed) such as in Scandanavia, Britain, most of north-western Europe, indeed most of the wealthiest nations, have tax systems (often progressive tax systems!) and a mixed economy, which destroys the assumption that permitting a bit of "theft" (your heavily moralised and value-laden term, not mine) does not do substantial damage to a country's incentive structure, whilst social security systems are able to be financially supported.

    The problem with a lot of social, moral, political and other normative philosophy is that there is a tendency for the weak-minded to endorse extreme, simplistic positions that neglect many nuances that feature in reality.
    Reading this was a breath of fresh air. Even on anonymous internet forums- the root of all modern day insanity, there is always one person who sees sense. Thank you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    You can call me naive if you want but the picture you paint of human nature is bleak and depressing. Forgive me for like you I am ambitious but my ambition is not as self centered or driven by greed.

    You've basically said that socialism doesn't work an capitalism is deeply flawed but we should stick with Darwinian Capitalism 'cos you're doin' just fine! You might dress your cynicism up as worldliness and say I'm wet behind the ears or something but I'm more than happy to use my talents and drive to benefit those around me and my community as well as myself. And I am willing to engage anybody in debate if they are willing to present a vision- either capitalist or socialist in nature that can advance human society, ease suffering and create opportunity.

    Toddle off and do your economics degree. I hope it brings you much material success.

    The problem you have is that you think that just because you might not be greedy and selfish that the general human being is not. But any normal person can see that by looking at history or just at simple daily situation that I am right.


    Poor people will always moan and complain complain. Poor people that got rich, like my fathers parents, worked hard and focused on themselves and how they can personally improve and try not to find the reasons for their misery in others.


    But, as for now, I m living in a villa and you not. And I ll earn myself ,on my own the sufficient money to maintain that lifestyle while you will despeerately try to justify your failure by whatsoever flawed economic,philosophical etc. reason. Good day. BTW dont bother responding to this as I will not even read it. It was mainly my anger about the stupidity of lefties arguements that made me break my rule not to waste my time arguing with ignorant, naive and unintelligent people that wouldnt get it anyway.

    Have fun living in your dream world where anyone is rich and hardworking.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    As I have stated before: you get these arguements with naive, unintelligent, unexperienced people, like you.


    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    You see if you as you said repect somones property and freedom (cars, houses etc.) why would you not respect his own firm and business?
    If it were a business involving just him, I wouldn't have a problem. It becomes a problem when he begins using wage labour to achieve his ends. It results in a hierarchical relationship between the employer and the employed which more or less grants the employer his own little dictatorship with said business as he can threaten to fire them if they refuse to follow an order, which can result in starvation in a society without welfare and often demonisation from the media in a society with it.

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    Its the entrepreneur that takes the risk, it is him that has the idea, its him that gives his workers money. If all people would think like you there d be no firms at all, because do you think that someone would take all the risk in opening a firm to please his "workers"?
    Him taking a risk is irrelevant. A slave owner in the 18th century would also have been taking a risk; the slave could have died before he made the owner his money back. This does not make owning slaves okay, though, does it?

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    PLEEEEEASSEEEE just use your BRAINNN
    Likewise.

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    And no, in my OWN firm noone except me has to say anthing at all.
    I'd be worried then if one of them noticed a fire...

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    According to your logic there are two types people. One the entrepreneurs those that take all the risk to create wealth and those that just take nice jobs.
    Very few jobs are "nice". Though I don't get how my logic implies this.

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    You see the evil entrepreneurs have to do all the hard
    I wont deny that entrepreneurs work hard. However to say that they do all the hard work is naive. Besides, them doing hard work is also irrelevant. Politicians also work hard, yet I bet we're both not exactly fans of them.

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    whereas according to your logic the other types of people just have to take jobs that were created by other people
    No. I'd prefer it if they didn't have to take jobs from others.

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    and on top of that have rights to determine anything about the jobs.
    Not anything. They should just at least have an equal say in things.

    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    Perhaps, you read a little bit about freedom.
    Again, likewise.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Socialism on paper is probably the best ideology but practically it has been applied in the wrong places hence its never been successfully implemented
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    I don't suppose you would mind defining capitalism? because capitalism by it's very nature involves private property over land and resources. You're starting to sound a bit like a mutualist.
    For me capitalism is a bit of a Trojan horse. While there are good elements to it: it encourages workers and capitalists to produce for example because it allows them to keep whatever they create, it also hands over scarce, finite resources to people who don't really deserve them under the guise of private property. This in itself creates an elite who are given free reign to live off the efforts of others.

    My golden rule for property is this: if you proved that you personally added the value then the law should be there to defend your claim. In contrast if you hived off a large parcel of land 500 years and lived off the rent ever since I would question what moral right you have to the income you're collecting.

    State socialism, sure. That's just the result of the state, it ****s everything up. But while we continue to have a state I just think it's better that the state ****s things up to the least degree.
    You can't stop people ****ing up I suppose. I'd prefer it though if the rules were changed so that the state didn't encourage us to **** up or **** other people over in an attempt to make a quick buck. People are incentivised to do some pretty odd things in the pursuit of cash benefits for example, if you're on working tax credits for example you're more or less obliged not to do overtime because they would jeopardise your right to claim the benefit. To me this is plain wrong and stupid, but we persist with it anyway because change is too scary.


    Me too. However, I just think that while we continue to have these injustices, welfare does help deal with the symptoms. It's kind of like how Lemsip wont cure your cold, however it still might stop you sneezing, coughing, etc.
    Except that the state is now effectively bankrupt so it's ability to continue to fund the welfare system is questionable. This is no coincidence either, its a logical consequence of the bankrupt economic policies we've freely chosen to adopt.

    Exactly. The problem is, how exactly do we do that?. The state always fails at doing that and direct action would most likely require more supporters first.
    It can't be done. All you can is look after no.1 while continuing to support the right reforms because it's the moral thing to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)




    If it were a business involving just him, I wouldn't have a problem. It becomes a problem when he begins using wage labour to achieve his ends. It results in a hierarchical relationship between the employer and the employed which more or less grants the employer his own little dictatorship with said business as he can threaten to fire them if they refuse to follow an order, which can result in starvation in a society without welfare and often demonisation from the media in a society with it.



    Him taking a risk is irrelevant. A slave owner in the 18th century would also have been taking a risk; the slave could have died before he made the owner his money back. This does not make owning slaves okay, though, does it?



    Likewise.



    I'd be worried then if one of them noticed a fire...



    Very few jobs are "nice". Though I don't get how my logic implies this.



    I wont deny that entrepreneurs work hard. However to say that they do all the hard work is naive. Besides, them doing hard work is also irrelevant. Politicians also work hard, yet I bet we're both not exactly fans of them.



    No. I'd prefer it if they didn't have to take jobs from others.



    Not anything. They should just at least have an equal say in things.



    Again, likewise.

    Get a life and some money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    What you're advocating here is theft.
    Maybe so. However it's simply better than the alternative. If a person dies, it makes no difference whether they did so because somebody shot them or because they couldn't afford an operation. They'll still die, their friends and relatives are still going to be traumatized by it and so on.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    A consequence of your take on capital is that people will eventually stop producing it, why bother when the benefits will be socialised (stolen) anyway?
    But again, that's not socialism. Under socialism, you'd get to keep all the buckets you make unless you've agreed otherwise.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    I really believe the left need to go back to the drawing board on this one and ditch the ideology in favour of ideas that simply work, both in principle and in practice.
    Again, I'm not saying I like this idea.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tea-Party)
    Get a life and some money.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Dear oh dear...

    Firstly, it makes no sense to talk about "theft" without any conception of an entitlement structure, and entitlement structures are man-made legal systems unique to a particular country. So you first have to argue for the morality of the entitlement system you support before you talk of theft. Your adversary does not accept your entitlement structure - and there are powerful arguments against it - not least that it requires laying claim to raw resources, excluding people from it and taking up finite space with no compensatory contract to other people (and all wealth, even derived from services, is ultimately grounded in somebody's exploitation of a finite resource under their control).

    It's worth mentioning that most, if not all, "social democracies" (where wealth is regularly taxed) such as in Scandanavia, Britain, most of north-western Europe, indeed most of the wealthiest nations, have tax systems (often progressive tax systems!) and a mixed economy, which destroys the assumption that permitting a bit of "theft" (your heavily moralised and value-laden term, not mine) does not do substantial damage to a country's incentive structure, whilst social security systems are able to be financially supported.

    The problem with a lot of social, moral, political and other normative philosophy is that there is a tendency for the weak-minded to endorse extreme, simplistic positions that neglect many nuances that feature in reality.
    Your persistent insults are really beginning to grate on me.

    If your position had any academic merit whatsoever we'd have abolished the pay packet decades ago because it's too "weak-minded, extreme and simplistic" to assume that the individual worker has an inalienable right to benefit from the value they've added.

    If we're serious about taking into account the myriad of "nuances that feature in reality" we'd put all our income into a collective pot and then allow a panel of informed and enlightened experts decide who's entitled to what. For that is the socialist way. It would also kill the economy stone dead overnight because it would erase the link between effort and reward that drives the (productive) capitalist economy.

    My ideology is no different in principle to the idea of a pay packet or a share certificate: if you can prove that you're responsible for the value that's been added then by default that value becomes your property. It may seem clever to denounce this as the ideology of the boneheaded, but I can assure you that anything left-wing intellectuals can dream up will only serve to make things worse, and almost certainly result in a grave humanitarian disaster.
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.