And some people care about helping themselves. I want to work, and get lots and lots of money. Take away money, and I have no desire to work.
But this isn’s a problem with Socialism of course. Just steal money from people who …oh wait, there is no money. So I have no reason to work unless I want to discover new ideas, which I don’t. So basically, everyone is a farmer so that they have food.
hahaha maybe your professors at rural 50’s american college did a bad job to tell you what socialism is? =D>
So seriously, and this is a personal question, if your needs of food and shelter, and perhaps even your unnecessary wants were taken care of without you having to work, what would you do all day every day?
S_K, life is more than food, clothing, shelter, and health. Even with the necessities provided, people have incentive to work because people by nature aren’t satisfied with enough. They want entertainment, luxury, creature comforts that a socialist state need not provide. The farmer, for working, gets luxury.
dear carleas, i once repeat that a socialist state is not what the USSR and its satellites were 50 years ago( it can be argued that it is a socialist state, but not the “model” one and certainly not the intended course one can derive from marx’s teachings). people have incentive to work in socialism, only the more able and talented are able to go forward regardless of their hereditary wealth and so on
Lay about an enjoy them. I have absolutely no desire to discover new things if I’m not going to be able to profit from it, and if all my needs were taken care of, there would be no personal gain.
So essentially your point here is, that we are vegetables looking for a place to take root?
There is creative fulfilling work, and then there are those who mop floors for a living. You bet, if it wasn’t for the money (i.e paying the bills), why would anyone want the second?
Socialism as an economic system, would not do away with either of these two examples above. The first they would make available to a larger proportion of the population, the second would be assured that at least their jobs would recieve a living wage.
And since production under Capitalism is so inefficient, Socialism would allow for more time to smell the roses, and decide where you are going. Even in such Capitalist countries as Western Europe, all are assured of long vacations and an easier opportunity to enhance their skills, education and personal choices.
I’m quite content to lay about, read, perhaps go for a walk. I can go weeks at a time without producing anything, or doing any task that some how benifits someone beside myself.
I never said money was the most important thing in life. I would rather get paid in back rubs. However, I am not going to work for someone else if it doesn’t benifit me in some way. Take away money, and I would no longer have the desire to make and decorate cakes for people.
You are the exception, Maytacera. Boredom is a motivating force for enough of the world’s population that it’s probably alright if you and your just sit around.
Boredum may make people do things, but it is not going to make people run out and start mass marketing computers or something. There are a lot of jobs out there that people do, not because they particualy like doing it, but because they need money.
Take for instance…resturants. Do you really think that waiters like waiting on tables, and would do it “just for fun”? Dishwashers? Bus boys? Hostesses? Nope. These are jobs that people take because they want money. If you stopped paying them, they would probably stop hanging around.
Yeah, I think those would go into the ‘few and far between’ considering the amount of cash that goes into the space program that could be put towards technology for ground-use.
I live in Canada, so I’ll leave discussion of the states to americans. You should know my definition of socialism by now…so you should be able to tell whether I think you’re living in a socialist country or not.
I guess I didn’t make myself clear. I never meant total slavery…and the connotation a word like that usually has. I meant that we are being forced into something we don’t necessarily want to do. That is in a sense, a less extreme version of slavery, as we lose our freedom. And about those benefits - the benefits do mean something. It’s just that I don’t think they justify forcing people to pay taxes.
You act like all the credit card companies are evil. If credit card companies change interest rates at whim, then people will start to notice and they will lose their business. IMO, the decent credit card companies will be the ones who get the most business and the corrupt ones won’t have many customers. What it comes down to is choice. We have the choice to pick what company gets our business, and therefore it is our responisibility not to get fucked over by bad companies.
You’re right. My bad. I misunderstood your post.
I never said we are free. We don’t have complete freedom.
Listen to me. I said that the government has no right to INTERFERE WITH A COUNTRY’S ECONOMY and has no right to FORCE PEOPLE TO PAY TAXES. If a law/regulation is in regards to a person’s rights then it is fine. Health insurance pertains to rights; it is fine. Anything else pertaining to rights is FINE. And don’t be saying that taxes have something to do with our rights. Of course, a country needs the government to protect the peoples rights, and the government needs money so this is possible. However, there are better methods for the government to get money. And obviously, the government can’t be spending more money than necessary.
Sure, you can suggest that. As long as you realize that it is based on straw men you made.
Ok, I’ll admit. I probably shouldn’t have said the “lazy ass” thing. All I meant is that people need to work for their money. And whether it’s enough money or not, the government shouldn’t be interferring in economics claiming to vouche for people who don’t make enough.
Yes, I see now that I am affected by other’s debts. However, that doesn’t justify what the government is doing. Debt isn’t something that will suddenly be cured by the government. Find methods not involving force to fix a country’s problems.
Benefits do not justify a socialist government, either. If I were in poverty, and someone forced me (against my will) away from that situation, and I had to spend my life caged up but given food, water and proper living conditions: would that be right? You’re the type of person that says it’s justified, I suppose. I, however, think that it would better if someone helped me without taking me away and caging me up. Why can’t a person provide me with food, water and money without using force?
This is why I stand for capitalism. It promotes more reasonable and less right-infringing methods of helping people.
As for freedom having that many definitions…I don’t want to argue semantics. When, I started posting, I thought I made it clear what definition I meant. I meant that we are free when we don’t have any force in our lives that doesn’t help protect people’s rights. You can’t try and change what I mean by freedom - I already had a set definition.
No. Total freedom (complete lack of slavery) is possible. All we need is someone protecting our rights and not intefering with other matters. Obviously, I’m talking about the government. The actual people within the country can work towards benefiting society and the country as a while, on matters such as economics. There are certainly enough decent people to provoke change.
We just haven’t seen enough laissez-faire capitalism to really see how it works. The power of others to enslave will be distinguised by a better law enforcement and judicial system.
Don’t blame me for creating “straw men” if you yourself admit that you weren’t clear…
Canada? You still pay taxes? Right?
There are only a few credit card companies, and in the United States they all act alike. They are ALL exempt from usury laws. What the situation is in Canada, is something you can TELL me. But in the US there is essentially a monopoly situation, and if you need a credit card in todays age, you have no choice.
I might add that when the Mafia lends you money, they don’t change the interest rate…
I have no idea what you mean. If the only definition of slavery is to pay taxes, then I am a slave and you are a slave. I pay almost 40 percent of my income in the form of taxes and obigatory fee’s. A rich man pays far less proportionally than I. It would seem then that neing rich under Capilatialism is a way out of slavery, while if I lived under Socialism, they would pay more proportionally than I do.
NB. I reject the definition. Taxes are slavery only when the individual has no input into the process. If a society is democratic, Capitalist or Socialist, then taxes are not slavery. If a society is NOT democratic, then what’s the difference?
If you go to the hospital for an emergency, you do indeed have a choice. It’s called “Live or die.”
If a criminal lies to you and you wind up in debt that you cannot pay back, who is to blame, you or the criminal?
Isn’t passing a law barring usery an example of Government interfering with the economy? Isn’t government passing zoning laws which forbid your neighbor from opening up a factory in a residentially zoned neighborhood and example of interferring with the economy? In fact the list is endless. You say the government has plenty of ways to raise money without taxes?
I find this difficult to justify. Taffifs? Fee’s? I dunno how you can justify this claim.
But on another level I agree with you. I do feel that we are being manipulated under Capitalism so that some people pay (proportionally) very little and yet recieve most of the benefits.
