Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

Taxes taken by the elected government to help those who need it is not the same thing as a mugger taking it in an alley for his own personal use. You will have to come up with a much better analogy as that one does not work for me.

- - - Updated - - -

Those which help the least of our citizens; those citizens who cannot help themselves. If you don't like those programs which help the poor and the disabled I am sorry for you.

 

What about a mugger taking it to help those who need it?

 

Robin hood? You know, if personal charity had taken better care of the needy as our society matured there would have been less need to create taxes to do the job.

 

The only Thing you are really saying is that you don't mind endorsing Lord Satan and His reign on Earth, due merely to a lack of wellness of regulation, sufficient to engender a Heaven on Earth through potential holiness, by practicing better morality.

What does capitalism have in regard to the subjective value of morals on a for profit basis?

 

So you don't consider it unethical for a mugger to take what belongs to another as long as he helps people with the stolen goods?

 

Oh yeah! I HATE them!

They sound a lot like SOCIALISM.

 

Only the right is that cognitively dissonant in modern Information Age times.

 

Sorry Robinhood was quite clearly was the first tax rebater...

 

Robin Hood heroically gave back to the tenants a part of what their landlords stole from them.

 

Nope. All charity is taken by landowners.

 

Yes, of course you do. You not only endorse, advocate and pimp for it, you try to rationalize, justify and defend the greatest evil that has ever existed: forcible removal of people's rights without just compensation, by appropriation of land as private property.

In Hong Kong, all land is publicly owned. Hong Kong routinely tops lists of the freest economies in the world, and is a model of economic prosperity.

In your belief system, that is flat-out impossible. In mine, it is inevitable. The facts of objective physical reality therefore prove that your belief system is objectively false, and mine is objectively true.

 

He is a landowner and landlord. He knows that all the money government takes from producers and consumers to devote to "helping the poor" is just taken by the poor's landlords, so he is cool with that.

 

Where do you think the policy came from?

 

Like the 5 cents an hour slave labor camps abroad (that are all the rage with "entrepreneurs" these days)? Why is it that only the CEO, or the "owner" are deserving of being well paid?

On a brighter note....Walmart workers are protecting too now, in addition to fast food workers. Maybe America is waking up finally?

 

He kept his tax returns hidden away, didn't he? Some place offshore, so I hear.

 

If he was no longer CEO, why was he legally referenced as the CEO, and why did he cash the checks paid to the CEO?

 

It wasn't an analogy. It was a question why it's moral for an agent of the government to use violence against peaceful people in order to advance a social and it's not moral for a private individual to do the same to another individual.

Or, it might be rephrased a: I don't have the right to violently take the property of another, so how does an individual working for the government get that right?

What's sorry is your typical question begging conclusion. It really amounts to a personal attack by painting me as someone who hates the poor, or something similar. That is intellectually dishonest.

You also create a false dichotomy, as if the only two possible answers to poverty is the positive answer of government help or the negative answer of no help at all. Why do you believe that to be the case.

If it wasn't already clear in this thread, the libertarian non-aggression principle is that it is wrong to use violence against peaceful people for purposes of a social or economic agenda. Here, you are saying that because you want the poor to be helped, it is valid to use violence in a manner which serves your cause. That is holding that the end justifies the means. There are other ways to help the poor that do not involve violence. If you believe that I am against those methods, then explain from where you draw that conclusion.

 

A post hoc fallacy. It does not follow that because charity was weak, that government stepped in to cure a problem. If what you say is true, it should not be hard for you to prove that the rate of charity was so low that government intervention actually changed. One way to do that, but by no means the most definitive way, is to chart the statistically significant change in the rate of poverty after government programs were instituted as compared to before those programs.

 

HaHa high school logic , i am explaining below.

It means that those who work in the construction company also own it and they get paid for their work in full not their boss .
In the ideal form of socialism everyone is self employed .

What practice? socialism never existed .

You obviously lack the background to have an opinion , if you want me to take you seriously go read.

 

If you don't consider it ethical for a mugger to take what belongs to another (regardless of what he does with the loot), why do you consider it ethical for someone employed by the government to take what belongs to another (regardless of what he does with the loot)?

 

Mut if Socialism has never existed then it never will.

Mr. Smith there is scant evidence that giving the government money actually helps the poor in any particualr way. Unless of course you think increasing their numbers is somehow beneficial...

 

Did you ever stop to ask yourself why those people over there sign up for that work? Why they think that job will make their life better?

These people are paid in their local currency. If you want their currency to be stronger complain to their government to stop needling with the price of their money. If china stopped for instance their currency would go up and all of their employees given a bigger wage automatically.

By the way, if you split up the Walmart CEO's salary among all their employees they would all get $10. Not even enough to pay half a days taxes. Who is it that is greedy again? Goverment?

 

Since we have had only a few months of socialism under war conditions as the capitalists try to kill everyone I cannot see that you know anything about the matter, unless you have a time machine to the future, in which case you would stay there.

 

Did you know that simply resorting to fallacy for your Cause could be considered a "sin" against philosophy?

Consider from this hypothetical and alternative line of reasoning; can a doctor do good, if he resorts to fallacy for his Cause regarding any diagnosis?

 

A pathetic dodge! I should have known you lack the intellectual capacity to defend your belief system. Using your idiotic logic, the people who build your home in a socialist society also own it. How is that right?