Wellfare is not compatible with communism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by yurigadaisukida, Jul 28, 2015.

  1. Some wealth is accumulated through thievery or fraud, but I guess that can/would be considered labor in a sense.



     
  2. #42 *ColtClassic*, Jul 29, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2015
    Research shows us that what is essentially the best means of lowering a country's birth rate is increasing the wealth and education of its citizens. If welfare can be reformed and an effective social safety-net can be created, then you'd be contributing greatly towards lowering the birth rate (which is what I assume you mean when you refer to 'population control'). However, in most developed countries the birth rates are already very low and the current population decline, combined with the coming demographic winter will be a big shock to the system.
     
  3. #43 *ColtClassic*, Jul 29, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2015
    If one does not trade their time, labor, or property for wealth, then how can wealth be accumulated in the first place? <span class="vi">
    How can property be acquired without any physical effort or investment of time?

    You are essentially saying that you are entitled to reap the benefits of
    another person's labor and be able to acquire material wealth by proxy.


    So... let's apply this mindset to the person you are wishing to engage
    in this transaction with - do you see why this is a problem?


    You are saying that someone should be given the burden of subsidizing your
    standard of living simply because... you exist? This type of societal
    organization can't be sustained if applied uniformly to all parties,
    and it inherently disadvantages certain individuals at the expense of
    others.

    If this was actually a realistic mindset that worked in practice, then we would be living in an entirely different world. <span class="ssens"><span class="vi">
    </span><span class="vi"></span>


    * Sorry for the triple-post, but I've been having a lot of javascript related problems and can't re-edit the posts in a way that would fix it.





    </span></span>
     
  4. #44 ReturnFire333, Jul 29, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2015
    The first fundamental thing wrong with this, is that happiness, comes from acquiring wealth, which it really doesn't. Happiness comes from everything wealth brings I would ask you to take a look at what money is bringing you. Money does not equal happiness, the things on the world equal happiness, to people.


    "How can property be acquired without any physical investment on time?" It can't. Especially technological advances. People invest that time because they want better stuff.


    "You are essentially saying that you are entitled to reap the benefits of another person's labor and be able to acquire material wealth by proxy."



    You're saying here that since other people build items we use, we have to pay for them.That's nothing but greed, which I believe to be a negative idealogy. The entire current American capatilist system enforces a top down distrubution of wealth, based on greed.


    "subsidizing your standard of living simply because... you exist?"



    Yes, absolutely. Every human being has basic needs for survival and happiness, clean food, clean water, and comfortable shelter from the elements. Subsidizing a standard of living such as this really doesn't amount to much, it means giving people enough money to live. Our entire Federal Reserve debt system is a fabrication from the start, money holds no value, give it to everyone, enough that they can live well. In small enough steps to not take the whole world by storm, but.












     
  5. #45 *ColtClassic*, Jul 29, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2015

    I never asserted that happiness comes from acquiring wealth. I never even mentioned happiness and my post didn't imply any stance on money/wealth's relation to happiness. I think you might be projecting your feelings about what money really means to you, because I brought up the acquisition of wealth and this immediately made you bring happiness into the discussion. I am talking about cut-and-dry economics and am not addressing the psychology behind money and greed.


    I had a rather lengthy response typed-out, with responses to each of your quotes, but, due to browser issues I lost my original response and the auto-save data hadn't saved recently enough. However, my point can really be summed up in the following:


    In order for someone to acquire property, they must invest their own time and labor (assuming that the property is acquired in good faith). Because of this person's initial investment, they have a greater claim on that property than anyone else (again, assuming it was obtained in good faith). If we wish to acquire their property and still respect their property rights, then we must compensate them accordingly in a voluntary transaction. We cannot reasonably demand that this person gives us their earned property without fair compensation, unless that person wishes to hand over the property as a gift or donation and is not being coerced or doing so under duress. Now, you say that it is greedy for someone to make or invent property and expect payment for said property. Which is the 'greedier' party - the party that demands something for nothing or the party that uses their time and skill to craft/cultivate/homestead/invent/repair/refurbish/repurpose/etc. something that is of value to the first party? The equation that represents the transfer of wealth you describe - one in which one party benefits entirely while the other is essentially a subservient laborer - does not add up. The type of transaction you call for is one of diminishing returns and, I'll say it again, cannot be sustained. You mention the Federal Reserve and allude to its fiat currency, but that is really irrelevant, because I am simply talking about economic principles that do not change no matter which private or national bank is tied to the currency being used. Also, the economic system that the US currently employs is not an elementary type of capitalism that is entirely top-down, state-controlled, or free from state influence. The economy exists on a spectrum and does not entirely adhere to a free market system or a socialist system. However, capitalism is not a system that needs to be enforced, as it is simply the voluntary exchange of goods/services in the form of a transfer of private property. The US' breed of crony-capitalism has been developed for generations and is unique in a sense that it belongs to the most technologically capable and indebted country in human history. Anyways, I'm pretty high and getting off point...


    I believe that everyone has a right to live and should be guaranteed equal access and opportunity, but the second you start using force/coercion to redistribute wealth, you are essentially enforcing indirect slavery and violating people's right to private property.













    <span class="vi"></span>







     
  6. Population control is evil. I can't believe someone like you would support something so primitive and barbaric.

    Natural population control happens already if you allow people to compete for limited resources.

    As opposed to stealing from people, giving to other people, and then banning babies.

    Who gets to choose who gets to have babies? Rich white folks?

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  7. #47 Malvolio, Jul 30, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2015
    As happens in most threads on this forum, people are entirely misunderstanding communism. There is no welfare in a communist society, because a real communist society is stateless. The transitional phase of communist society (like the Soviet union) is like a dictatorship of the proletariat, during which the society forcefully achieves common ownership of the means of production. This is then followed by the dissolution of government to create an anarcho-communal society.


    What people are referring to in this threat is some form of state-based puritanical socialism.
     
  8. I want every human in the world to have access to free birth control
    you can't blame a poor family for having 10 kids when they have no way of protecting themselves from tht burden
     
  9. population control is not birth control

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  10. Government intervention leading to decreased birth rates - sounds like population control to me
     
  11. Maybe this is just semantics but

    There is a big difference between the state choosing who can have kids, and the parents choosing if they want kids

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  12. Nothing is 'free'. I believe you mean subsidized birth control.


    Again, as I've stated before, the best way to reduce population growth is to decrease poverty, as there is a direct correlation.

     
  13. You a fan of Brave New World?


     
  14. Actually...


    http://qz.com/445568/scientists-say-many-worker-ants-are-actually-super-lazy/


    "They were surprised to find that almost half of the ants were actually fairly inactive throughout the day. While their counterparts busied themselves with nest-building or foraging, these ants were “effectively ‘specializing' on inactivity,” according to the paper."
     
  15. this way there are spare workers in the event of an emergency

    -Yuri
     
  16. #56 HongKongPhooey, Aug 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2015
    Makes sense.


    I've heard that if you take away those slackers, that a new 20-50% percentage of slackers will form out of the previously busy ants.
     
  17. Not arguing against your logic however more babies - less money

    Less money in the governments coffers tht is. since the gov is paying for these unplanned "miracles"

    Population control in the form of SUBSIDIZED birth control i.e. condoms, pills and ablrtions would give the government more room for investing in the future of the peasants rather than just keep them and their offspring in semi respectable living conditions


    Sent from my phone
     
  18. doesn't more humans = more producers?

    Its not a question of total money. The issue is producers versus takers.

    -Yuri
     
  19. Your premise is false. According to the Pew Research Center, only 13% of households receiving entitlements under the "welfare" umbrella contain no working adults. If you want to explain the growing number of working families relying on entitlements, you need to examine the fact that real wages haven't risen since 1979 (adjusted for inflation), while the cost of living in most areas of the country has risen dramatically.


    To wit, depressed wages are driving increasing numbers of working families into poverty, debt, and reliance on entitlements in order to maintain their living standard. For which I blame thirty years of neoconservative and neoliberal economic policy.
     
  20. i bet most people on welfare wish they had a job


    except for the ones who have multiple jobs but still cant make ends meet - those ones wish they never had kids
     

Share This Page