Socialism

[vern_humphrey]

So I guess the “working” poor are lazy. Maybe they should have all their children working and work about 70 hour weeks.

Do you want to know why they support it? Because there are many people who cannot support themselves…

Read this post… forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3080575&postcount=204

But they are scum that should die or “be dealt blows” for not being born with the appropriate traits.

No, the lazy people are those who want other people to pay higher taxes, but will not get off their butts to earn enough so they can pay their fair share.

These people are not handicapped by lack of intelligence – they are as smart as any millionaire. If you don’t believe that, ask them – they’ll tell you so themselves.

 

[ribozyme]

No, the lazy people are those who want other people to pay higher taxes, but will not get off their butts to earn enough so they can pay their fair share.

These people are not handicapped by lack of intelligence – they are as smart as any millionaire. If you don’t believe that, ask them – they’ll tell you so themselves.

Gee… do you think everyone can learn differential calculus?

Yes, people do not want to admit their own limitations. I do not find that surprising. Regarding myself, I do not think I am capable of comprehending the arcanum of mathematics beyond differential calculus. I rather use my time studying oncology or another molecular biology topic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gee… do you think everyone can learn differential calculus?

Everyone with normal intelligence can – it ain’t that hard.

Yes, people do not want to admit their own limitations. I do not find that surprising. Regarding myself, I do not think I am capable of comprehending the arcanum of mathematics beyond differential calculus. I rather use my time studying oncology or another molecular biology topic.

What your bent is is one thing. But you have the ability to master the most difficult mathematics, if you are normal and apply yourself.

 

[milde]

Yes, people will use redistributed money to buy pornography and alcohol, but what it that money can be used to help lift people out of poverty and rectify the fundamental injustices of nature; inequality in natural ability? Redistributed money has to be wisely adminstered; for example, WIC has several restrictions on how their money can be spent.

That is what Singer proposes (with new technological advanced). Tell me how that is tantamont to genocide.

You conceded that you cannot come up with a single example in history of a society where this has worked. You also conceded that American capitalism has done more to raise a society’s poor than any socialist or communist government ever has.

While talking about all these great socialist ideas why don’t you also talk about the results of these attempts in the past and the millions of people that suffered miserable deaths under those experiments.

 

[milde]

Yes, people do not want to admit their own limitations. I do not find that surprising. Regarding myself, I do not think I am capable of comprehending the arcanum of mathematics beyond differential calculus. I rather use my time studying oncology or another molecular biology topic.

You’d be surprised what you can do when you stop thinking that way. And what’s even more surprising is what you can do even if you do have the limitation you mentioned. I’m surrounded by a world of “I can’t” people. Drives me nuts because 99% of them are “I don’t wanna have to think about it” people.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’d be surprised what you can do when you stop thinking that way. And what’s even more surprising is what you can do even if you do have the limitation you mentioned. I’m surrounded by a world of “I can’t” people. Drives me nuts because 99% of them are “I don’t wanna have to think about it” people.

The difference between winners and losers is that losers put their efforts into finding excuses why they can’t do something, and winners put their into finding ways they can do it.

 

[ribozyme]

You’d be surprised what you can do when you stop thinking that way. And what’s even more surprising is what you can do even if you do have the limitation you mentioned. I’m surrounded by a world of “I can’t” people. Drives me nuts because 99% of them are “I don’t wanna have to think about it” people.

I just think my time would be better spent reading about something that interests me: cancer. (because it is congruent with my own aptitude; but however, I will freely admit it does require reading hundreds of pages of information, but it is satisfying and I can do it in a facile fashion). I do not expect myself to be a physicist of the caliber of Brian Greene. Also, do you honestly expect that anyone can be educated in the fashion that John Stuart Mill was? Do you think most people can handle that pedagogy and intellectually intense study?

Do you expect yourself to be an NBA player or Mozart with more practice? People have limitations…

You conceded that you cannot come up with a single example in history of a society where this has worked. You also conceded that American capitalism has done more to raise a society’s poor than any socialist or communist government ever has.

While talking about all these great socialist ideas why don’t you also talk about the results of these attempts in the past and the millions of people that suffered miserable deaths under those experiments.

Yes and no… I guess the government did not play a role in abolishing slavery, establishing universal education, eliminating child labor, requiring safe work environments, and providing for subsidized assistance to the poor (such as WIC). Do you want to abolish any of those government functions? I guess those functions of the government are “socialist.”

One can argue what Singer advocates can be justified as it is somewhat analogous to funding education although it actually endows people with profound ability, not merely optimizes their talents.

Look, no one actually believes communism works (or extreme socialism), ok. But I guess Sweden (yeah, that country with a life expectancy of 80 and with the second highest human development index) is a failed experiment with a plethora of “miserable deaths.” I support a mixed system with a strong safety net. I am not suggesting that you take the money of the wealthy and redistribute it in a fashion that renders the Gini coefficient zero. I sincerely believe that if that exaggerated scenario happens, most of that money would not be in competent hands (the Gottfredson quotes support this). Why do you think WIC restricts the way people can spend government money?

Edit: hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

It fell to 6th but the USA feel to 12th.

 

[milde]

I just think my time would be better spent reading about something that interests me…

And that’s capitalism. You get to choose how you spend your time. But that sort of freedom comes with responsibility. Make the wrong choices and there is little reward. Make choices that benefit others in a capitalistic economy and then you can be rewarded relative to the value you create.

The further you tip the scales towards socialism or even communism, the more unhappy people become with their jobs. Job satisfaction among the French is very low according to numerous studies. In America it is quite high. The difference is freedom of choice and the rewards that go hand in hand with good choices.

 

[milde]

Yes and no… I guess the government did not play a role in abolishing slavery

You really need to do some more reading. Government plays a key role in capitalism. Are you equating capitalism to being anti-government?? Capitalism requires personal property rights. Period. That is the first and foremost requirement. Slavery means people have no property rights. It’s an example of socialism and communism, not capitalism!

Grab a book on the American economic system. Greenspan’s recent book isn’t bad reading. He discusses several countries and their struggles towards capitalism. It’s interesting reading. We forget how fortunate we are to live in a stable time in America long after the American civil war.

 

[ribozyme]

Here’s the entire PDF for 2007:

hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_tables.pdf

Let’s see how the United States compares with the other “communist” first world countries.

So it is wrong to bash the United States based on a high Gini coefficient which you deem as a virtue, but want to evaluate objective/absolute measures as high inequality is compatible with a high quality of life for everyone?

Show me how dystopian the other “communist” countries are based on this objective data not from a liberal think tank or propagandist such as Michael Moore (I’ll loathed SiCKO and I do advocate UHC because it obviously did serious dissimulation)

VH: You do not have any evidence that Peter Singer wants to sterilize people or go on a genocide.

Adolph Hitler was serious, too. And the main difference between Hitler and Singer is that Singer doesn’t have the political power – yet – to put all his ideas into practice

Why did you imply that Peter Singer advocates policies of immense cruelty and suffering? I thought utilitarians are against suffering. Do not tell me Nazism is utilitarian.

The difference between my position on social justice and Singers’ is I don’t want to kill people, I want to educate them. The difference between my position on social justice and the liberals’ is I don’t want to feed and warehouse people, generation after generation, I want to educate them.

And Peter Singer wants to educate people, and eliminate suffering. He also wants to enhance people using technology too. I do not see anything wrong with that.

I hope Peter Singer gains more influence within the world as I hope by embracing utilitarianism, people will recognize the suffering of others and hope to assuage it. I should buy a copy of Practical Ethics and read about ten pages a day, everyday. Because I read Practical Ethics, I will follow Singer’s example by donating about 20% of my earnings to MSF, OXFAM, and UNICEF by not indulging in luxuries. I hope those who read that book will emulate Singer’s personal example.

 

[vern_humphrey]

VH: You do not have any evidence that Peter Singer wants to sterilize people or go on a genocide.

You provided that yourself. You showed that he supports the killing of one particular class of person – the unborn. That’s genocide.

Why did you imply that Peter Singer advocates policies of immense cruelty and suffering? I thought utilitarians are against suffering. Do not tell me Nazism is utilitarian.

Killing people becauise they are of no use to the state is cruel and promotes suffering. And yes, that is what the Nazis did.

 

[ribozyme]

You provided that yourself. You showed that he supports the killing of one particular class of person – the unborn. That’s genocide.

Killing people becauise they are of no use to the state is cruel and promotes suffering. And yes, that is what the Nazis did.

As discussed in chapter 5 of Practical Ethics, embryos and fetuses are NOT persons. Singer’s reason is that they do not have the capacity to have interests. That is they do not have the ability to see themselves as entities with a past, present, and future.

Do you have any evidence that those who are less than 20 weeks old (after conception) can suffer? He also advocates those decisions are made at the parent’s discretion should it doesn’t involve the suffering of coercion.

Does anyone have any evidence that the first world “communist” nations suffer from a lower quality of life? Milde, want to provide some?

 

[vern_humphrey]

As discussed in chapter 5 of Practical Ethics, embryos and fetuses are NOT persons. Singer’s reason is that they do not have the capacity to have interests. That is they do not have the ability to see themselves as entities with a past, present, and future.

Dead wrong. The use of the term “person” to mean “a human being with superior rights” is a neo-logism, invented to justify killing innocent human beings without due process of law.

Do you have any evidence that those who are less than 20 weeks old (after conception) can suffer?

Begging the question – those are not criteria by which we should decide life and death issues – no more than the length of a person’s hair or the color of his eyes.

He also advocates those decisions are made at the parent’s discretion should it doesn’t involve the suffering of coercion.

Just as a rapist’s decisions should be made at his discretion?

Does anyone have any evidence that the first world “communist” nations suffer from a lower quality of life? Milde, want to provide some?

Go ask the citizens of former Soviet Block nations!

 

[ribozyme]

Dead wrong. The use of the term “person” to mean “a human being with superior rights” is a neo-logism, invented to justify killing innocent human beings without due process of law.

Begging the question – those are not criteria by which we should decide life and death issues – no more than the length of a person’s hair or the color of his eyes.

Just as a rapist’s decisions should be made at his discretion?

I thought a rape by definition doesn’t involve the consent of the victim. So there is coercion by definition.

Go ask the citizens of former Soviet Block nations!

Well, I used “communist” in quotation marks…

I mean countries such as countries such as Iceland, Norway, and Australia… the top three countries in the United Nations Human Development Report.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I thought a rape by definition doesn’t involve the consent of the victim. So there is coercion by definition.

Whereas the victim of an abortion signs a notarized consent form?

Well, I used “communist” in quotation marks…

When you’re in a hole, quit digging.

I mean countries such as countries such as Iceland, Norway, and Australia… the top three countries in the United Nations Human Development Report.

Then why did you refer to communist nations?

 

[ribozyme]

Whereas the victim of an abortion signs a notarized consent form?

When you’re in a hole, quit digging.

They do not have the capacity to even think; if the abortion is done earlier enough, such as before 20 weeks after conception, no suffering is inflicted. Rape victims, however, suffer if I am not mistaken.

Then why did you refer to communist nations?

Because those countries are “socialist” in some aspects, and have public policies that you loathe because they are “socialist.” The use of “communist” was hyperbole and any rational person should acknowledge that a free market is the best way to allocate at least some services. Everyone should know first world communist country is an oxymoron.

Want to look at the data of the Human Development Report?

hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_tables.pdf

 

[milde]

Does anyone have any evidence that the first world “communist” nations suffer from a lower quality of life? Milde, want to provide some?

You’re d@mn right they suffered a low quality of life! Ask the millions Stalin sent to Siberia!

American capitalism has created a standard of living for it’s poor far and above any communist nation. The “poor” in America today even have a standard of living above the AVERAGE standard of living of today’s citizens of the European Union. Hence the reason I have so little sympathy for most “poor” people in my country (America) today.

Keep in mind though that America did not create this through government. They did it through private business. All those wonderful modern gadgets that the poor enjoy today (cable TV, cars, and yes, even 40% home ownership) came from private industry created by INDIVIDUALS, not government.

 

[ribozyme]

You’re d@mn right they suffered a low quality of life! Ask the millions Stalin sent to Siberia!

American capitalism has created a standard of living for it’s poor far and above any communist nation. The “poor” in America today even have a standard of living above the AVERAGE standard of living of today’s citizens of the European Union. Hence the reason I have so little sympathy for most “poor” people in my country (America) today.

Keep in mind though that America did not create this through government. They did it through private business. All those wonderful modern gadgets that the poor enjoy today (cable TV, cars, and yes, even 40% home ownership) came from private industry created by INDIVIDUALS, not government.

Not quite, mean of Internet users (per 1000 in 2005) in the top 11 of the UNHDR is 612 and median is 630, while the United States is 630 (in 2004). If you remove Ireland for the this calculation, the mean is now 645.5. (Canada (520) , Ireland (276), France (430), Finland (534) and Switzerland (498) were lower.) Regarding cell phones, only Canada has a lower rate than the USA per 1000 people in the top 12. Doesn’t seem to be a huge disparity in access to technology in the other countries.

Well, I am more concerned with the Internet than television access because more useful information is available through that medium. You could use it to learn about the molecular biology of cancer, biochemistry, physics, or unfortunately, look at pornography or do other unedifying activities.

Regarding the poor in the United States, the United States has a a very high probability (11.6) to not surviving to age 60 is the next highest in developed nations (Czech Republic). Causes can be complex though such as bad lifestyle. Also poor people are more likely to be obese…

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uow-zca082807.php

My philosophy regarding taxes, is that the government should take care of its own citizens and the need for charity should be minimized (for its own citizens). However, some countries might not have the resources for this, and it is best for charity to be used on them. It is better to rely on legislation to take care of local issues, while charity can be used to help those without a strong democratic process or sufficient economy.

I think the United Nation’s programmes are doing a satisfactory job; look at the the growth in the HDI in the African nations from 1975-2005. Like Singer, I believe donating to UNICEF is a worthy cause. I feel encouraged after reading those statistic in the UNHDR.

However, I do not know if you would agree with this… you have stated you have no sympathy for the poor in the United States, but you also stated that people (I am not so sure about yourself) can care less about the welfare of those in other countries.

Yes, I really do. Recent history has shown that you can literally kill a million people in an African country and Americans just wonder what you are talking about when you try to tell them. It’s not because they don’t care about people but because they don’t understand.

Charity happens in a person’s very close social circle. Families take care of family members. People participate in activities with their church, etc.

Yes, there is profound truth in that statement; one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic.

And yes, economic redistribution is justified to prevent this from happening, right? But no one is advocated for extreme redistribution now… I do not care if it is “theft” because that situation is worse than any possible “theft” against the wealthy.

 

[ribozyme]

Yes, the free market scares me… it gives me nightmares.

Read this essay by Singer why:

utilitarian.net/singer/by/2003----.htm

The third and in my view most significant ground for objecting to a genetic supermarket is its threat to the ideal of equality of opportunity. John Schaar has written: “No policy formula is better designed to fortify the dominant institutions, values, and ends of the American social order than the formula of equality of opportunity, for it offers everyone a fair and equal chance to find a place within that order.”[27] It is, of course, something of a myth to believe that equality of opportunity prevails in the United States, because wealthy parents already give their children enormous advantages in the race for success. Nevertheless, the Ron’s Angels slogan of “beauty and brains to the highest bidder” points to a future in which the rich have beautiful, brainy, healthy children, while the poor, stuck with the old genetic lottery, fall further and further behind. Thus inequalities of wealth will be turned into genetic inequalities, and the clock will be turned back on centuries of struggle to overcome the privileges of aristocracy. Instead the present generation of wealthy people will have the opportunity to embed their advantages in the genes of their offspring. These offspring will then have not only the abundant advantages that the rich already give their children, but also whatever additional advantages the latest development in genetics can bestow on them. They will most probably therefore continue to be wealthier, longer-lived and more successful than the children of the poor, and will in turn pass these advantages on to their children, who will take advantage of the ever more sophisticated genetic techniques available to them. Will this lead to a Gattaca society in which “Invalids” clean toilets while “Valids” run the show and get all the interesting jobs?[28] Lee Silver has pictured a USA a millennium hence in which the separation between “Gene-enriched” humans and “Naturals” has solidified into separate species.[29] That is too far in the future to speculate about, but Maxwell Mehlman and Jeffrey Botkin may well be right when they predict that a free market in genetic enhancement will widen the gap between the top and bottom strata of our society, undermine belief in equality of opportunity, and close the “safety valve” of upward mobility.[30]

How do we avoid that? It seems government is necessary to give access to everyone or ban it (impossible because a black market will form)

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, the free market scares me… it gives me nightmares.

Read this essay by Singer why:
utilitarian.net/singer/by/2003----.htm

How do we avoid that? It seems government is necessary to give access to everyone or ban it (impossible because a black market will form)

Explain to me how it matters whether it is a free market or not? A despotic, socialist government is just as likely to yield the same…if not worse.

The scary scenario of genetic engineering of “perfect” children is a possibility irrespective of economic model.