|
On August 25 2011 07:11 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 07:01 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:48 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them. Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I would suggest rereading what he wrote. He specifically said he wasn't addressing specifically the tax code but rather the mentality that "oh, it's the fault of the super rich not paying enough" vs "damn poor people mooching off government welfare" divides people, and politicians use that segmentation to appeal to specific crowds. Which is relevant to your second attack on him, as he's saying that class warfare is rampant and bad - which is 100% relevant to Marxism. He never said anything about denouncing the wealth gap making you Marxist. I would suggest rereading what he wrote (and who he was replying to) and what I wrote. It's pretty obvious that he is between the lines saying that there should not be so much focus on the amount of taxes paid by the top 2%. The thing is... there should be, and it has nothing to do with Marxism/class warfare. I'm all for saying "there should be no "us vs them" mentality". The problem is that this is often used to muddle the waters and indirectly argue that the tax breaks given to the wealthy shouldn't be revoked. I'm curious to see if he's ready to admit that they should. So now you're backpedaling and going off assumption. How can you accuse him of a strawman while simultaneously be "reading between the lines." He already said he agreed with the way the tax code works - it's very possible he might disagree with the extent/disparity, but unlike you, I'm not making assumptions on what he thinks. And yes, wealth redistribution is in every which way related to class warfare, I'm waiting on your argument on how it isn't related, since you seem to be challenging this idea. I fully agree with him that as long as the bottom people are living non-impoverished lives and are able to receive proper education then the wealth gap is not a large concern whatsoever. Of course this is not necessarily the case, but he was doing nothing more than stating his mentality concerning the matter. And it's all relative on tax breaks. You can twist things however you want to make them sound different. If the tax rate for $100,000+ earned was 95% and below $100,000 earned was at 5%, and you suddenly implemented a "tax break" for all income earned above $100,000 to be at 85% instead of 95%, it's a completely different situation. In the end, they're still being taxed substantially more than the rest. And please don't bring in tax loopholes etc. because we're talking how things "should" be ideally, not how they are.
Nowhere am I backpedaling. I accused him of a strawman because his intention was clearly to declare to be Marxists people questioning the validity of tax breaks to the top 2%. I was 100% correct in my interpretation of his post since he actually explicitly SAID IT in his next post. Pay more attention next time.
No, wealth redistribution is not "in every which way related to class warfare". How the hell is it, and most importantly which policies are you referring to when using the expression "wealth redistribution"?
|
On August 25 2011 07:11 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 07:06 H0i wrote:
How is it relevant what kind of label you stick on a way of thinking? Because then you can denounce your opponent as marxist/ communist/ socialist/ whatever and don't have to answer his arguments because they are "obviously wrong because he's marxist/ communist/ socialist and because of that biased and not answer-worthy". It's an easy way out. Everyone understands that it's a problem if a real small percentage of the people own massivly large amounts of wealth and THEN don't even pay tax accordingly. If 5% own 60% of the wealth the obviously should bear the biggest amount of (private ->non corporate) taxes. No matter your view on the world.
I don't think I've read a more poorly composed argument in a while. The first part is a bunch of garbage about marxist/communist/socialist, especially because all the friggin' Europeans are always reminding us how amazing socialism (at least, in its connotative form) is, and how the U.S. is so far behind and we're all barbarians.
Then you start to say "everyone" understands it's a problem and how "obviously" everyone should view things how you view it, and top it off with "no matter your view." What? Even if I do AGREE with you on how things should be done, that argument is so poorly constructed it hurts.
On August 25 2011 07:11 BlackFlag wrote:
The dismantlement of unions (especially strong unions, who are willingly to fight back) is a real problem and one of the reasons why the world is so fucked. We need world-wide unions, and solidarity with third world countries. This would bring class-warfare.
Oh... my... god...
On August 25 2011 07:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 07:11 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 25 2011 07:01 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:48 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them. Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I would suggest rereading what he wrote. He specifically said he wasn't addressing specifically the tax code but rather the mentality that "oh, it's the fault of the super rich not paying enough" vs "damn poor people mooching off government welfare" divides people, and politicians use that segmentation to appeal to specific crowds. Which is relevant to your second attack on him, as he's saying that class warfare is rampant and bad - which is 100% relevant to Marxism. He never said anything about denouncing the wealth gap making you Marxist. I would suggest rereading what he wrote (and who he was replying to) and what I wrote. It's pretty obvious that he is between the lines saying that there should not be so much focus on the amount of taxes paid by the top 2%. The thing is... there should be, and it has nothing to do with Marxism/class warfare. I'm all for saying "there should be no "us vs them" mentality". The problem is that this is often used to muddle the waters and indirectly argue that the tax breaks given to the wealthy shouldn't be revoked. I'm curious to see if he's ready to admit that they should. So now you're backpedaling and going off assumption. How can you accuse him of a strawman while simultaneously be "reading between the lines." He already said he agreed with the way the tax code works - it's very possible he might disagree with the extent/disparity, but unlike you, I'm not making assumptions on what he thinks. And yes, wealth redistribution is in every which way related to class warfare, I'm waiting on your argument on how it isn't related, since you seem to be challenging this idea. I fully agree with him that as long as the bottom people are living non-impoverished lives and are able to receive proper education then the wealth gap is not a large concern whatsoever. Of course this is not necessarily the case, but he was doing nothing more than stating his mentality concerning the matter. And it's all relative on tax breaks. You can twist things however you want to make them sound different. If the tax rate for $100,000+ earned was 95% and below $100,000 earned was at 5%, and you suddenly implemented a "tax break" for all income earned above $100,000 to be at 85% instead of 95%, it's a completely different situation. In the end, they're still being taxed substantially more than the rest. And please don't bring in tax loopholes etc. because we're talking how things "should" be ideally, not how they are. Nowhere am I backpedaling. I accused him of a strawman because his intention was clearly to declare to be Marxists people questioning the validity of tax breaks to the top 2%. I was 100% correct in my interpretation of his post since he actually explicitly SAID IT in his next post. Pay more attention next time.
Don't have enough time to respond to the entire thing as I'm on my lunch break, but before looking at it in depth further you're mostly right (more than I am). I disagree with your interpretation of his argument (I believe having part of a Marxist mentality and being Marxist itself are different), but I was wrong to say you were backpedaling as you were further onto it than I was.
|
On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme.
He is the only intellectually sound candidate in the entire party.
You exaggerate his quirks, although yes his agenda does obviously favor the top 2%.
A politician with actual logic and reasons spelled out honestly behind his platform is hard to find. Even if I disagree with some of his tenets you can't help but wish other politicians were like him (instead of the very unintelligent scumbags/thugs that they all are).
|
On August 25 2011 07:17 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 07:11 BlackFlag wrote:On August 25 2011 07:06 H0i wrote:
How is it relevant what kind of label you stick on a way of thinking? Because then you can denounce your opponent as marxist/ communist/ socialist/ whatever and don't have to answer his arguments because they are "obviously wrong because he's marxist/ communist/ socialist and because of that biased and not answer-worthy". It's an easy way out. Everyone understands that it's a problem if a real small percentage of the people own massivly large amounts of wealth and THEN don't even pay tax accordingly. If 5% own 60% of the wealth the obviously should bear the biggest amount of (private ->non corporate) taxes. No matter your view on the world. I don't think I've read a more poorly composed argument in a while. The first part is a bunch of garbage about marxist/communist/socialist, especially because all the friggin' Europeans are always reminding us how amazing socialism (at least, in its connotative form) is, and how the U.S. is so far behind and we're all barbarians. Then you start to say "everyone" understands it's a problem and how "obviously" everyone should view things how you view it, and top it off with "no matter your view." What? Even if I do AGREE with you on how things should be done, that argument is so poorly constructed it hurts.
Well, europe has large problems and I'm not a nationalist and I see it the way it is. But the USA has BY FAR the largest social problems in the western world. If you say different, you are either ignorant or lying. Key-words-> ghettos, structural rasiscm, largest prison population of the world, etc. blabla
Everyone who sees reality as what it is agrees that it's a problem. It's not my fault that a large percentage of the public is manipulated by fox-news propaganda. And I didn't even say what has to be done about it, I just stated that it's a problem. If it wouldn't be a problem we wouldn't be talking about it.
|
And could you please use the term "class struggle" instead of "class warfare"? Class struggle becomes class warfare when people take up arms and fight. It's just fear mongering of the "red hordes" coming for the american way of life. Thank you.
|
On August 25 2011 07:22 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 07:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 25 2011 07:11 BlackFlag wrote:On August 25 2011 07:06 H0i wrote:
How is it relevant what kind of label you stick on a way of thinking? Because then you can denounce your opponent as marxist/ communist/ socialist/ whatever and don't have to answer his arguments because they are "obviously wrong because he's marxist/ communist/ socialist and because of that biased and not answer-worthy". It's an easy way out. Everyone understands that it's a problem if a real small percentage of the people own massivly large amounts of wealth and THEN don't even pay tax accordingly. If 5% own 60% of the wealth the obviously should bear the biggest amount of (private ->non corporate) taxes. No matter your view on the world. I don't think I've read a more poorly composed argument in a while. The first part is a bunch of garbage about marxist/communist/socialist, especially because all the friggin' Europeans are always reminding us how amazing socialism (at least, in its connotative form) is, and how the U.S. is so far behind and we're all barbarians. Then you start to say "everyone" understands it's a problem and how "obviously" everyone should view things how you view it, and top it off with "no matter your view." What? Even if I do AGREE with you on how things should be done, that argument is so poorly constructed it hurts. Well, europe has large problems and I'm not a nationalist and I see it the way it is. But the USA has BY FAR the largest social problems in the western world. If you say different, you are either ignorant or lying. Key-words-> ghettos, structural rasiscm, largest prison population of the world, etc. blabla Everyone who sees reality as what it is agrees that it's a problem. It's not my fault that a large percentage of the public is manipulated by fox-news propaganda. And I didn't even say what has to be done about it, I just stated that it's a problem. If it wouldn't be a problem we wouldn't be talking about it.
I literally cannot stand these kinds of arguments. "If you believe other than what I'm saying, you're a friggin' idiot." I already said I didn't necessarily disagree with you on the matters, but rather your arguments in this thread is utterly atrocious.
Also, our media in general is ungodly poor on both spectrums, it just so happens you tend to agree with the biased parts that support your side. Although Fox is, in my opinion, undoubtedly the worst offender.
|
Alright. It's the same general feeling.
I'm just saying that there doesn't need to be so much class struggle. Politicians mobilize it against each other. And if marxist theory is correct it will lead to widescale collapse --> communism, which is always successful ><
Alright, maybe this is incorrect. But I live near San Francisco, one of the areas with the most homeless people in the USA. And honestly they seemed much better kept after than those homeless in Paris. Sure this is anecdotal, but no more so than simply saying if I disagree I'm a moron.
In my opinion Swedish socialism (strong socialism) has worked, but where countries have gotten into trouble is where the government enacts what I like to call de-facto socialism. (Greece) Huge expenses, but still lots of capitalist thought, and it just doesn't work.
The USA has social problems, but it would indeed be stupid to blame ALL OF THEM on the upper class.
|
On August 25 2011 07:17 FabledIntegral wrote:
Don't have enough time to respond to the entire thing as I'm on my lunch break, but before looking at it in depth further you're mostly right (more than I am). I disagree with your interpretation of his argument (I believe having part of a Marxist mentality and being Marxist itself are different), but I was wrong to say you were backpedaling as you were further onto it than I was.
Thank you for your reply and your intellectual honesty. We may disagree on fiscal policy but it's nice to see people argue honestly.
|
On August 25 2011 07:26 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 07:22 BlackFlag wrote:On August 25 2011 07:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 25 2011 07:11 BlackFlag wrote:On August 25 2011 07:06 H0i wrote:
How is it relevant what kind of label you stick on a way of thinking? Because then you can denounce your opponent as marxist/ communist/ socialist/ whatever and don't have to answer his arguments because they are "obviously wrong because he's marxist/ communist/ socialist and because of that biased and not answer-worthy". It's an easy way out. Everyone understands that it's a problem if a real small percentage of the people own massivly large amounts of wealth and THEN don't even pay tax accordingly. If 5% own 60% of the wealth the obviously should bear the biggest amount of (private ->non corporate) taxes. No matter your view on the world. I don't think I've read a more poorly composed argument in a while. The first part is a bunch of garbage about marxist/communist/socialist, especially because all the friggin' Europeans are always reminding us how amazing socialism (at least, in its connotative form) is, and how the U.S. is so far behind and we're all barbarians. Then you start to say "everyone" understands it's a problem and how "obviously" everyone should view things how you view it, and top it off with "no matter your view." What? Even if I do AGREE with you on how things should be done, that argument is so poorly constructed it hurts. Well, europe has large problems and I'm not a nationalist and I see it the way it is. But the USA has BY FAR the largest social problems in the western world. If you say different, you are either ignorant or lying. Key-words-> ghettos, structural rasiscm, largest prison population of the world, etc. blabla Everyone who sees reality as what it is agrees that it's a problem. It's not my fault that a large percentage of the public is manipulated by fox-news propaganda. And I didn't even say what has to be done about it, I just stated that it's a problem. If it wouldn't be a problem we wouldn't be talking about it. I literally cannot stand these kinds of arguments. "If you believe other than what I'm saying, you're a friggin' idiot." I already said I didn't necessarily disagree with you on the matters, but rather your arguments in this thread is utterly atrocious. Also, our media in general is ungodly poor on both spectrums, it just so happens you tend to agree with the biased parts that support your side. Although Fox is, in my opinion, undoubtedly the worst offender.
I dislike this too, but I didn't do it, because I am just stating facts. It's fact, that the USA have the (percentage-wise) largest prison population in the world. In western society in the USA it's the hardest for people to better their social status (social mobility). USA have the worst crime-rates, most murders and the hardest getthos in the western world (but France is trying to take away this title).
These things ARE facts that are not discussable. YOu could say that this happens because the people in Amercia are morally corrupt and bad (and because of that high crime rates) but that would be pretty rascist and would not bring us any nearer to a solution.
And I would not say that I argee with any media and especially not with any party. I try to stay critical. I don't even know a real leftist mass media tv show or news paper. Maybe middle-left but that is something different.
edit: I am not attacking you as a person, but you have not answered any argument I have brought forth and only said that I am horribly biased.
To bring up some quickly found links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_prison_population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate
|
On August 25 2011 07:11 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 07:06 H0i wrote:
How is it relevant what kind of label you stick on a way of thinking? Because then you can denounce your opponent as marxist/ communist/ socialist/ whatever and don't have to answer his arguments because they are "obviously wrong because he's marxist/ communist/ socialist and because of that biased and not answer-worthy". It's an easy way out. Everyone understands that it's a problem if a real small percentage of the people own massivly large amounts of wealth and THEN don't even pay tax accordingly. If 5% own 60% of the wealth the obviously should bear the biggest amount of (private ->non corporate) taxes. No matter your view on the world. The problem with "class warfare" (you americans use that term so often, without even really knowing what really is "class warfare") is that it's one way at the moment. "the rich" buy political power-> political power buys laws-> the laws let "the rich" pay less taxes-> which gives them more money to buy political power. The dismantlement of unions (especially strong unions, who are willingly to fight back) is a real problem and one of the reasons why the world is so fucked. We need world-wide unions, and solidarity with third world countries. This would bring class-warfare.
Exactly! This is exactly what I also think, but I didn't want to start an argument about it, just wanted to confront the people who call me or others a "marxist" with their stupid claims.
+9001 internets for you.
|
Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons.
1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east.
2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.)
3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
|
On August 25 2011 07:27 Froadac wrote:
Alright. It's the same general feeling.
I'm just saying that there doesn't need to be so much class struggle. Politicians mobilize it against each other. And if marxist theory is correct it will lead to widescale collapse --> communism, which is always successful ><
Alright, maybe this is incorrect. But I live near San Francisco, one of the areas with the most homeless people in the USA. And honestly they seemed much better kept after than those homeless in Paris. Sure this is anecdotal, but no more so than simply saying if I disagree I'm a moron.
In my opinion Swedish socialism (strong socialism) has worked, but where countries have gotten into trouble is where the government enacts what I like to call de-facto socialism. (Greece) Huge expenses, but still lots of capitalist thought, and it just doesn't work.
The USA has social problems, but it would indeed be stupid to blame ALL OF THEM on the upper class.
The problem is with the entire mentality of society and economics.
Why is it good if the economy grows? We don't need to produce more useless stuff (and waste our resources) and we don't need to have 20 trillion people on the earth.
The entire system of capitalism is a ponzi scheme. It assumes infinite growth on a planet with finite resources, and now we're seeing it all end. Money is simply an artificial barrier for the usage of and the distribution of our natural resources, resulting in the huge waste on crap and the huge difference between rich and poor. Really. Economy/capitalism is not efficient, it wishes to waste as much as possible. Why is the world people replaced with "consumers" in news articles? Because we live in a consumer society with the goal of consuming as much as possible. Quantity over quality. The idea is be efficient with money, which means get as much of it as possible. This results into companies/people wanting to sell as much as possible (use as many resources as possible). Cutting down more trees than come back mean we die as a race. Removing all fish from the seas means the food chain will break and that means we die as well. Yet this system does not care for these things at all.
It is all a part of social evolution. Our current system is unsustainable. It only worked up to now because of resource stockpiles that were available, but those are severely depleted at this point in time. The next step is moving away from this system, and using science and technology to have a fun and good, but sustainable life, without money, without corporations, without wars, etc.
I recommend this movie by the way:
+ Show Spoiler +
Please give it some time, it offers a good but lengthy explanation.
|
On August 25 2011 06:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them. Right, which is why I very specifically stated in the next paragraph "I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code." Do you have trouble reading? Show nested quote +
Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Also, this is not a strawman argument. A huge number of people do see the world in this Marxist mentality, which is why they focus so much on how much the rich should be paying. Everyone is going to disagree on what is a "fair" amount to tax. Using hyperbole about "tax breaks" seems pointless to me. I could just as easily use hyperbole and say you want to "raise taxes on the rich." The difference is merely the timeframe we are using. Taxes go up and they go down, calling it a "tax break" means we already have an established level at which the rich SHOULD be getting taxed, which is the real strawman here. And yes, denouncing wealth disparity is a distinctly Marxist mentality. It's only possible to denounce disparity if you see the world in a "bourgeois vs. proletariat" mentality. I don't give a damn about the disparity between people, I only care about the standard of living of the poorest in our nation. If the poor are housed and fed and have educational opportunities, etc, then why should I care how much more Warren Buffett is making? I could only care if I equate economic equality with justice.
I kind of agree with you that the standard of living of poorest member of the society is important measure and I think it is the one that should be used. But on the other hand it seems there are societal benefits to low GINI, at least as far as correlations go, nothing 100% sure as of yet. But still I think it is worth looking at, because if there are really some causal relationships it might be good to directly address disparity if it would turn out that it has big influence on crime (just example).
So no, it is not necessarily distinctly "Marxist" mentality. There are other reasons to denounce disparity apart the "X vs Y" mentality. It is possible to denounce disparity just in the basis of utilitarianism, there is no need to invoke any Marxist sentiments.
EDIT:typos
|
"The next step is moving away from this system, and using science and technology to have a fun and good, but sustainable life, without money, without corporations, without wars, etc."
What if Kim Jong Il uses science and technology to have a fun, good, unsustainable life, without money, without corproration,m with a hell of a lot of wars conquering the world
>.>
I see the Zeitgeist movement as just blatant overplanning. We're looking waaaayyyy into the future, to turn everything into a machine run methodology. And does it sound appealing, yeah. I highly doubt that you will ever be able to make private property obsolete.People like things. And no amount of social engineering will change that.
|
On August 25 2011 07:47 truemafia wrote:
Ron Paul should be elected for three reasons.
1. He's the only one that actually talks about how US could fall down like Russia if they keep extending their militaristic approach to middle east.
2. Other candidates believe Obama is the main cause of this economic bs. However Ron is the only person who believes foreign policy is fucked up down to the roots and get rid of keep invading other countries regardless of the fucking president. He knows reducing the foreign defense budget is the key to reducing the overall debt.(Instead of putting money in foreign countries, he said put it on enhancing Mexican borders.)
3. I don't see anyone beating obama in the republican field except Ron Paul. Everyone just looks like they came out to get nationally recognized instead of actually modifying the country's current values.
1. I think he's wrong on the Russia point. There are big social and economic differences between the United States now and the Soviet Union. I actually like the comparisons between Japan (after its banking crisis) and America now. There are some flaws, but they make more sense.
2. So Mr. Paul thinks our foreign policy is the reason why we're in this economic crisis? If so, then he's wrong. I think tackling the defense budget is very noble of him, but I think it's the key to reducing our overall debt.
3. I don't think any Republican can beat Obama right now.
|
On August 25 2011 08:09 Froadac wrote:
"The next step is moving away from this system, and using science and technology to have a fun and good, but sustainable life, without money, without corporations, without wars, etc."
What if Kim Jong Il uses science and technology to have a fun, good, unsustainable life, without money, without corproration,m with a hell of a lot of wars conquering the world
>.>
No, no, no. This is exactly what I hate.
First of all stop sticking labels to things people say.
Secondly, red star communism in china, russia, north korea or whatever is not the same as actually having a good economical system. These are oppressive governments that have no respect for liberties and play a game of enriching themselves while suppressing the people.
Just because some governments are oppressive and use terms like socialism as an excuse to do that, it does not mean that socialism itself is bad. In fact, what I'm talking about isn't even socialism, it's something totally different: a responsible system that won't kill humanity. If you would only watch the movie I linked, you can see what I mean.
What I'm talking about WILL happen if we want to survive and live better than we do now. It won't be because of some government oppressing people, it will be because people want it. It makes much more sense than the system we have right now, and I am quite sure I can convince every single person of this if I can talk to this person for enough time.
|
I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
|
On August 25 2011 07:29 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 07:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 25 2011 07:22 BlackFlag wrote:On August 25 2011 07:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 25 2011 07:11 BlackFlag wrote:On August 25 2011 07:06 H0i wrote:
How is it relevant what kind of label you stick on a way of thinking? Because then you can denounce your opponent as marxist/ communist/ socialist/ whatever and don't have to answer his arguments because they are "obviously wrong because he's marxist/ communist/ socialist and because of that biased and not answer-worthy". It's an easy way out. Everyone understands that it's a problem if a real small percentage of the people own massivly large amounts of wealth and THEN don't even pay tax accordingly. If 5% own 60% of the wealth the obviously should bear the biggest amount of (private ->non corporate) taxes. No matter your view on the world. I don't think I've read a more poorly composed argument in a while. The first part is a bunch of garbage about marxist/communist/socialist, especially because all the friggin' Europeans are always reminding us how amazing socialism (at least, in its connotative form) is, and how the U.S. is so far behind and we're all barbarians. Then you start to say "everyone" understands it's a problem and how "obviously" everyone should view things how you view it, and top it off with "no matter your view." What? Even if I do AGREE with you on how things should be done, that argument is so poorly constructed it hurts. Well, europe has large problems and I'm not a nationalist and I see it the way it is. But the USA has BY FAR the largest social problems in the western world. If you say different, you are either ignorant or lying. Key-words-> ghettos, structural rasiscm, largest prison population of the world, etc. blabla Everyone who sees reality as what it is agrees that it's a problem. It's not my fault that a large percentage of the public is manipulated by fox-news propaganda. And I didn't even say what has to be done about it, I just stated that it's a problem. If it wouldn't be a problem we wouldn't be talking about it. I literally cannot stand these kinds of arguments. "If you believe other than what I'm saying, you're a friggin' idiot." I already said I didn't necessarily disagree with you on the matters, but rather your arguments in this thread is utterly atrocious. Also, our media in general is ungodly poor on both spectrums, it just so happens you tend to agree with the biased parts that support your side. Although Fox is, in my opinion, undoubtedly the worst offender. I dislike this too, but I didn't do it, because I am just stating facts. It's fact, that the USA have the (percentage-wise) largest prison population in the world. In western society in the USA it's the hardest for people to better their social status (social mobility). USA have the worst crime-rates, most murders and the hardest getthos in the western world (but France is trying to take away this title). These things ARE facts that are not discussable. YOu could say that this happens because the people in Amercia are morally corrupt and bad (and because of that high crime rates) but that would be pretty rascist and would not bring us any nearer to a solution. And I would not say that I argee with any media and especially not with any party. I try to stay critical. I don't even know a real leftist mass media tv show or news paper. Maybe middle-left but that is something different. edit: I am not attacking you as a person, but you have not answered any argument I have brought forth and only said that I am horribly biased.To bring up some quickly found links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_prison_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate
If I haven't made it clear yet, I was attacking the method in which you present your arguments, not your arguments themselves. Rather than saying something like in this post "U.S. have the largest percentage of prisoners per 1,000 people in the world for Western societies," you rather have been saying, "Everyone understands that it's a problem when ..." when clearly there's massive contention around it. Which is why I constantly stated that I don't even necessarily disagree with the points you're making, just that your posting mannerisms have no place in this topic, as I could pick out several "it's obvious..." "if you think otherwise you're ignorant or lying" etc. "arguments" which are worthless in and of themselves.
|
On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
The reason people dislike you calling them marxist is not because they see it as an attack. It is because many people stick this label on someone and then use it as an excuse to don't respond to the actual content of the post, because this "marxist" person is a marxist.
You could say I'm anti rich a bit, but if you read my posts you will see it's not so much anti rich, it's more anti system. The tiny amount of rich having nearly everything and the huge amount of poor having nearly nothing is only a symptom of our diseased system.
Edit: typo.
|
So everyone agrees to it.
And one group of well armed power hungry SOBs intervene? What happens.
I'm not saying that north korea is bad because its communist. I'm just saying that it's not going to be like OOH WE LIKE THAT LETS DO IT OH ITS DONE WE ARE HAPPY. There is a lot more to it than that. And going purely commodity based puts us back to barter, with no intermediary.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
