Socialism does work

[Brian]

As an aside, the word is properly spelled "buncombe" -- named for the politics in Buncombe County, North Carolina.

 

By sheer coincidence, I live in Buncombe County...

 

[Marblehead]

Yep.  That was a nice aside.

[thelerner]

Karl, perhaps your ideal is the old West, like a frontier town.  Little to no rules.  Not bad places, like most, they're as good as the native people who inhabit them.  Still the Golden rule in effect there tended to be: Those with the Gold Make the Rules; at least as far as civil projects happen, ie roads, laws, building, education..

 

As those towns evolve bigger and more complex they ended up well.. like the towns they are today.  For people who are anti-tax and anti-rules the West (Alaska's good too) is often better then the coasts, small towns better then big cities.  With growth comes complexity and rules. 

 

The small towns also don't have the the opportunities available in a city.   Its really quite simple, you want the facilities and opportunities of modern life, you end up paying through the social contract.  You can belly ache about how repressed you are, or move to a place with a lighter contract with the less opportunities and lower taxes. 

 

What would make you happy?  Homesteading?  Go for it.  Build a shack, live off the grid.  Its can be hard work and pretty boring, but you'll be safe from the statists and isn't that what life (for you) is all about.   You may find yourself yearning for city life, even with the taxes. 

 

I think a dose of reality would give you much better appreciation for what you have now.  You compare your present life to an imaginary world in your head and find it's horrible repressed.  You should try homesteading so you can compare your life with a realistic alternative.   It'd improve it because you'd be less a theoretician and more grounded. 

Edited August 28, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

That is what I said.  Specifics can be argued.

 

 

And that is what I said also.

 

 

But you have not presented one single example with supporting data to show this.  I presented data from Wikipedia.  I know that some people don't trust Wikipedia.  That's their problem, not mine.

 

Oh, you cannot insult me without proving that I have been feeding invalid data in order to support my position.

 

I have presented data.  You don't like it.  That's your problem.  Prove it wrong.

 

Well, please don't underestimate my abilities.  I have presented data that you call BS without offering a single piece of data to support your claim.  My position therefore still stands. 

 

 

I did not interpret the data.  I presented it to support my argument.  Apparently it worked well.

 

 

This is a different discussion.  Please remain with the discussion at hand.

 

 

That's actually a silly concept as well as being not part of our discussion.

 

 

WTF?!?

 

We are talking about percentage of income.  For example, 10% flat tax rate.  Everyone pays the same percentage.  Yes, the higher the income the higher the amount but still a fair share.

 

What you suggested puts a greater burden on the poor.

 

Yes, the wealthy have always taken more from the poor than they take from the wealthy.  And that is why the wealthy are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer.

 

 

Yes, and welfare is counter productive.  And so are most government agencies.

 

 

I think you just said the same thing I am saying.

 

At this time I decline to continue the discussion. I would like to, but I think it would be counter productive.

 

I'm going to end up arguing points about maximum and minimum levels taxation and the Laffer curve, when I don't even support taxation. It's that kind of gig.

 

I dont agree with you that 'people' are the problem, only that governments and states are the problem and people are just the unwitting pawns in games of power. If you stick ten thousand people in a tiny field from which there is no escape, then you can hardly escape the reality of the damage done to the field.

 

It's for these reason that I cannot continue.

 

 

[Karl]

Karl, perhaps your ideal is the old West, like a frontier town. Little to no rules. Not bad places, like most, they're as good as the native people who inhabit them. Still the Golden rule in effect there tended to be: Those with the Gold Make the Rules; at least as far as civil projects happen, ie roads, laws, building, education..

 

As those towns evolve bigger and more complex they ended up well.. like the towns they are today. For people who are anti-tax and anti-rules the West (Alaska's good too) is often better then the coasts, small towns better then big cities. With growth comes complexity and rules.

 

The small towns also don't have the the opportunities available in a city. Its really quite simple, you want the facilities and opportunities of modern life, you end up paying through the social contract. You can belly ache about how repressed you are, or move to a place with a lighter contract with the less opportunities and lower taxes.

 

What would make you happy? Homesteading? Go for it. Build a shack, live off the grid. Its can be hard work and pretty boring, but you'll be safe from the statists and isn't that what life (for you) is all about. You may find yourself yearning for city life, even with the taxes.

 

I think a dose of reality would give you much better appreciation for what you have now. You compare your present life to an imaginary world in your head and find it's horrible repressed. You should try homesteading so you can compare your life with a realistic alternative. It'd improve it because you'd be less a theoretician and more grounded.

That's as good an demonstration of the fallacy of the false alternate as Ive come across. We can have civilisation without big government, states or taxes. What's becoming blindingly obvious is it won't be long until we don't have civilisation because of big governments and taxes.

 

I have no intention of 'living off the grid' the state did not invent anything, a group of men just took a buggy ride on the back of the productive and then proceeded to sell the idea that they were the horse and not the burden. A necessity and not an expensive and dangerous cost to the rest of us.

 

You fell for it. I didn't.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

That's as good an demonstration of the fallacy of the false alternate as Ive come across. We can have civilisation without big government, states or taxes. What's becoming blindingly obvious is it won't be long until we don't have civilisation because of big governments and taxes. I have no intention of 'living off the grid' the state did not invent everything, a group of men just took a buggy ride on the back of the productive and then proceeded to sell the idea that they were the horse and not the burden. A necessity and not an expensive and dangerous cost to the rest of us. You feel, for it. I didn't.

Nope. Either totalitarianism or nihilism. Pick one.

 

 

 

 

 

[thelerner]

 I dont agree with you that 'people' are the problem, only that governments and states are the problem and people are just the unwitting pawns in games of power.

It's all people.  It really is, not aliens, not God.  People make up the government.  You can join and participate in it, in creating new rules and legislature and try to end old ones.  If you did you'd find it a hard job, full of complexities without easy answers and many worthy agendas working at opposing goals. 

 

If you did work in a governing body you'd have to shed your stereotypes and theoretical assumptions and deal with people and there long list of contradictory needs. 

[Karl]

It's all people.  It really is, not aliens, not God.  People make up the government.  You can join and participate in it, in creating new rules and legislature and try to end old ones.  If you did you'd find it a hard job, full of complexities without easy answers and many worthy agendas working at opposing goals. 

 

If you did work in a governing body you'd have to shed your stereotypes and theoretical assumptions and deal with people and there long list of contradictory needs. 

 

That's exactly my point.

[Marblehead]

At this time I decline to continue the discussion. I would like to, but I think it would be counter productive. I'm going to end up arguing points about maximum and minimum levels taxation and the Laffer curve, when I don't even support taxation. It's that kind of gig. I dont agree with you that 'people' are the problem, only that governments and states are the problem and people are just the unwitting pawns in games of power. If you stick ten thousand people in a tiny field from which there is no escape, then you can hardly escape the reality of the damage done to the field. It's for these reason that I cannot continue.

Well, you know I have to comment regardless.

 

Shall we understand that governments are composed of people?  In an ideal world all non-productive, of course.  Just sucking off the tax dollars from people who are being productive.

 

But we don't have an ideal world.  That should be a big "Duh!".

 

And I will suggest here that Socialism will have the tendency to grow government.  More agencies to help take care of the non-productive elements of society.

[Marblehead]

Nope. Either totalitarianism or nihilism. Pick one.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, come on!  Give we Anarchists a break!

[Brian]

It's all people. It really is, not aliens, not God. People make up the government. You can join and participate in it, in creating new rules and legislature and try to end old ones. If you did you'd find it a hard job, full of complexities without easy answers and many worthy agendas working at opposing goals.

 

If you did work in a governing body you'd have to shed your stereotypes and theoretical assumptions and deal with people and there long list of contradictory needs.

Added to this, it is my personal observation that most politicians aren't particularly bright. There are very few, in fact, that I really want making important decisions on my behalf, much less wielding something akin to supreme executive power.

 

This is why I say that smaller and more localized government is generally preferable (not to mention an oft-ignored requirement for the US...) The less politicians control, the less they can screw things up.

[Marblehead]

Spoken like a wanna-be Anarchist.

[Karl]

Well, you know I have to comment regardless.

 

Shall we understand that governments are composed of people?  In an ideal world all non-productive, of course.  Just sucking off the tax dollars from people who are being productive.

 

But we don't have an ideal world.  That should be a big "Duh!".

 

And I will suggest here that Socialism will have the tendency to grow government.  More agencies to help take care of the non-productive elements of society.

 

What else would it be composed of ?

Change starts and ends with the self regardless of ideals. If you support the state and political structure whilst claiming to be an anarchist you are being hypocritical.

I can't end the state, I can only withdraw my support fir the state and then act in a responsible way that accords with my values. In other words I withdraw any demands for further privileges for myself and anyone else. I don't want whatever they are selling just as I don't support people who fence stolen property.

[Apech]

Here's a good one:

 

[Karl]

Here's a good one:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a-hB-4h6_s

 

Yes, the obvious solution to all the problems the government creates is ......ta da. More Government.

 

$15 an hour. The stingy sod. Why not $100.

 

If we had only known that raising the minimum wage produces instant wealth we could have solved the entire issue with the African continent. Blimey, why didn't anyone think to do that ? so obvious.

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

What else would it be composed of ?

I just wanted to make sure we were talking the same language.

 

Change starts and ends with the self regardless of ideals.

I don't need to change.  I am already perfect.

 

If you support the state and political structure whilst claiming to be an anarchist you are being hypocritical.

I am very sure you have never seen any words coming from me indicating that I support the state or our political structure.

 

I am not claiming to be an Anarchist.  I am one.  But I am living in an area on the planet where there is social structure played out by various governments so I must comply with the rule of the society.

 

I can't end the state, I can only withdraw my support fir the state and then act in a responsible way that accords with my values.

But that really doesn't help much.  They will still take their taxes from us.  Beyond that, sure, we can ignore them.  But that doesn't help either.

 

In other words I withdraw any demands for further privileges for myself and anyone else. I don't want whatever they are selling just as I don't support people who fence stolen property.

I have never asked for nor have I ever accepted privilege from any government.  I do expect my Army retirement check because that is a contract I had with the Army.  I do expect my Social Security check because that is my money being returned to me according to law.

 

Beyond that they can all go piss up a tree.

 

But eventually someone will have to do some work on the country's infrastructure.  I doubt much would get done without the governments paying for and directing it.

[Apech]

Just for balance a glimpse into the mind of Donald Trump:

 

[Karl]

I just wanted to make sure we were talking the same language.

 

 

I don't need to change.  I am already perfect.

 

 

I am very sure you have never seen any words coming from me indicating that I support the state or our political structure.

 

I am not claiming to be an Anarchist.  I am one.  But I am living in an area on the planet where there is social structure played out by various governments so I must comply with the rule of the society.

 

 

But that really doesn't help much.  They will still take their taxes from us.  Beyond that, sure, we can ignore them.  But that doesn't help either.

 

 

I have never asked for nor have I ever accepted privilege from any government.  I do expect my Army retirement check because that is a contract I had with the Army.  I do expect my Social Security check because that is my money being returned to me according to law.

 

Beyond that they can all go piss up a tree.

 

But eventually someone will have to do some work on the country's infrastructure.  I doubt much would get done without the governments paying for and directing it.

 

I would rather have you as an ally than an enemy. If you are part way down this road, then its a bonus. I don't want to go upsetting the apple cart in order to try and force the adoption of a more radical position than you are prepared to take.

 

It took me a few years to accept that I couldnt have it both ways and it isn't an easy stance to take.

 

Some libertarians think that accepting a pension, medical care, using the roads means that this is acceptance of the state. It's rather like Buddhists who can't kill an insect, but wash their hands and destroy billions of microscopic creatures anyway. The government is a fact in our lives. Those of us who have worked all our lives have paid many thousands in tax and we are stuck with monopolistic state services and monetary system. We have to live with it, but that doesn't mean we have to support it.

 

I would say that- it's only a suggestion- that if you examine certain aspects of your beliefs such as infrastructure and population control, that these beliefs lead to a tacit support of force. It's the feeling that somebody should force others to comply in some way which you deem necessary for whatever good reason. It's here that change can occur if you are willing to accept it and decide that nobody should be forced to do anything regardless of what you believe the outcome would be. I'm not talking about defending your property, family and person here either- that is your right not to be harmed ( rights are always negative unlike privileges which are always positive).

 

 

[Karl]

Just for balance a glimpse into the mind of Donald Trump:

 

 

He doesn't inspire when it comes to the economics of China. The Yuan was pegged to the dollar and floated down on market demand and not Chinese action. They have been attempting to prop up their currency in recent months.

[Marblehead]

I would rather have you as an ally than an enemy. If you are part way down this road, then its a bonus. I don't want to go upsetting the apple cart in order to try and force the adoption of a more radical position than you are prepared to take.

Oh, you are a friend and I would defend you if it were within my capabilities and capacities.

 

It took me a few years to accept that I couldnt have it both ways and it isn't an easy stance to take.

No, we can't have it both ways, but we can have a little of both.  Moderation perhaps is the thought.

 

Some libertarians think that accepting a pension, medical care, using the roads means that this is acceptance of the state. It's rather like Buddhists who can't kill an insect, but wash their hands and destroy billions of microscopic creatures anyway. The government is a fact in our lives. Those of us who have worked all our lives have paid many thousands in tax and we are stuck with monopolistic state services and monetary system. We have to live with it, but that doesn't mean we have to support it.

Exactly.  And we should speak out against what we understand as being wrong whenever we get the chance.  I will defend my country and our way of life but that doesn't mean that I like or even agree with the way the politicians are doing their job.

 

I would say that- it's only a suggestion- that if you examine certain aspects of your beliefs such as infrastructure and population control, that these beliefs lead to a tacit support of force. It's the feeling that somebody should force others to comply in some way which you deem necessary for whatever good reason. It's here that change can occur if you are willing to accept it and decide that nobody should be forced to do anything regardless of what you believe the outcome would be. I'm not talking about defending your property, family and person here either- that is your right not to be harmed ( rights are always negative unlike privileges which are always positive).

In my own personal conduct I am a conservative.  In my heart I am a humanitarian.  When I speak of population control I'm not talking about culling people.  I am talking about educating people so they don't have so many people to begin with.  I think it is so sad to bring a life into the world when it faces starvation and early death.

 

The infrastructure can easily be dealt with by means of a "use" tax.  If you use it, you help pay for it.  If you don't use it you don't have to pay for it.  Roads, water, waste disposal, electrical could all be handled this way.  Sure, defense of the country would be universal.  We all use that service.  That's why we don't speak German, Russian or Japanese right now.

 

But I would agree with Donald in the video above that those countries we are protecting should be paying the bill.

[Karl]

Moderation is fine if we are talking about individual consumption. If the state only applied to you personally this would most definitely be acceptable, but it doesn't, it applies to everyone. In other words you are imposing your beliefs of state moderation on other people because you believe it is acceptable.

 

There is a logical fallacy that fits this argument calle the false middle, I hadn't known it before I studied logic, but I implicitly knew it, there is no middle way. There is no acceptable amount of force beyond that of your own defence.

 

Evil lies in wait for those that are prepared to compromise.

 

This is something that can only be decided individually, it only works that way, by fully conscious voluntary acceptance. That's what I believe it means to accept and embrace reality fully. It has to be that choice and no other will do. To let go of fear completely not by some act of ignorant sacrifice but it full knowledge.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Damn!  You are more hardcore than I am.

Moderation is fine if we are talking about individual consumption. If the state only applied to you personally this would most definitely be acceptable, but it doesn't, it applies to everyone. In other words you are imposing your beliefs of state moderation on other people because you believe it is acceptable.

I'm not imposing on anyone.  I'm not in the Army anymore.  No one needs jump when I say "JUMP!".

 

There is a logical fallacy that fits this argument calle the false middle, I hadn't known it before I studied logic, but I implicitly knew it, there is no middle way. There is no acceptable amount of force beyond that of your own defence.

Well, you go ahead and walk wherever you wish.  I will walk the middle path as often as possible.  It's got nothing to do with logic.  Just personal experiences.

 

Evil lies in wait for those that are prepared to compromise.

But without compromise there will be war.  We rarely get everything we want.  Talking while having a cup of tea is much better than fighting a war.

 

This is something that can only be decided individually, it only works that way, by fully conscious voluntary acceptance. That's what I believe it means to accept and embrace reality fully. It has to be that choice and no other will do. To let go of fear completely not by some act of ignorant sacrifice but it full knowledge.

WEll damn!  I get to agree with you.  Good job!

[Karl]

Damn!  You are more hardcore than I am.

 

I'm not imposing on anyone.  I'm not in the Army anymore.  No one needs jump when I say "JUMP!".

 

 

Well, you go ahead and walk wherever you wish.  I will walk the middle path as often as possible.  It's got nothing to do with logic.  Just personal experiences.

 

 

But without compromise there will be war.  We rarely get everything we want.  Talking while having a cup of tea is much better than fighting a war.

 

 

WEll damn!  I get to agree with you.  Good job!

 

It absolutely isn't about having things the way that want, the exact opposite. Having a cup of tea to avoid a war is not compromise, being able to talk and reason is always preferable to violent action, but if you have war in your heart, then there will be war. This is the nature of man and our faculty to reason is what sets us apart. We have in thus the power to destroy everything or to rise to incredible heights and there is nothing between those two choices but reason.

 

A compromise is between two sliding scales. It is between genocide and limited murder. The scales always slide and a few murders become a crowd, then a few thousand then before we know what's happened we are murdering millions in gas chambers. It's best not to take the compromised view.

 

Again, this is entirely a personal stance. This is how I am and not simply an ideal.

[Geof Nanto]

The more things change the more they stay the same. Here’s some input into this discussion on utopias from T’ao Ch’ien written around 400 AD……

 

PEACH-BLOSSOM SPRING

 

During the T'ai-yuan years [376-397 A. D.] of the Chin Dynasty, there was a man in Wu-ling who caught fish for a living. One day he went up a stream, and soon didn't know how far he'd gone. Suddenly, he came upon a peach orchard in full bloom. For hundreds of feet, there was nothing but peach trees crowding in over the banks. And in the confusion of fallen petals, there were lovely, scented flowers. The fisherman was amazed. Wanting to see how far the orchard went, he continued on.

 

The trees ended at the foot of a mountain, where a spring fed the stream from a small cave. It seemed as if there might be a light inside, so the fisherman left his boat and stepped in. At first, the cave was so narrow he could barely squeeze through. But he kept going and, after a few dozen feet, it opened out into broad daylight. There, on a plain stretching away, austere houses were graced with fine fields and lovely ponds. Dikes and paths crossed here and there among mulberries and bamboo. Roosters and dogs called back and forth. Coming and going in the midst of all this, there were men and women tending the fields. Their clothes were just like those worn by the people outside. And whether they were old with white hair or children in pigtails, they were all happy and of themselves content.

 

When they saw the fisherman, they were terribly surprised and asked where he had come from. Once he had answered all their questions, they insisted on taking him back home. And soon, they had set out wine and killed chickens for dinner. When the others in the village heard about this man, they all came to ask about him. They told him how, long ago, to escape those years of turmoil during the Ch'in Dynasty [221-207 B.C.], the village ancestors gathered their wives and children, and with their neighbors came to this distant place. And never leaving, they'd kept themselves cut-off from the people outside ever since. So now they wondered what dynasty it was. They'd never heard of the Han, let alone Wei or Chin. As the fisherman carefully told them everything he knew, they all sighed in sad amazement. Soon, each of the village families had invited him to their house, where they also served wine and food.

 

After staying for some days, the fisherman prepared to leave these people. As he was going, they said There's no need to tell the people outside. He returned to his boat and started back, careful to remember each place along the way.

 

When he got back home, he went to tell the prefect what had happened, and the prefect sent some men to retrace the route with him. They tried to follow the landmarks he remembered, but they were soon lost and finally gave up the search.

 

Liu Tzu-chi, who lived in Nan-yang, was a recluse of great honor and esteem. When he heard about this place, he joyfully prepared to go there. But before he could, he got sick and passed away. Since then, no one's asked the Way.

 

Ch'in's First Emperor ravaged the sense heaven gives things, and wise people fled. Huang and Ch'i left for Shang Mountain, and these villagers were also never seen again. Covering all trace of their flight, the path they came on slowly grew over and vanished. They worked hard tending fields together, and come dusk, they all rested. When mulberry and bamboo shade thickened, planting time for beans and millet came. Spring brought the silkworm's long thread, and autumn harvests without taxes. There, overgrown paths crossing back and forth, roosters calling to the bark of dogs, people used old-style bowls for ritual and wore clothes long out of fashion. Kids wandered at ease, singing. Old-timers happily went around visiting friends. Things coming into blossom promised mild summer days, and bare trees sharp winds. Without calendars to keep track, earth's four seasons of themselves became years, and happy, more than content, no one worried over highbrow insights. A marvel hidden away five hundred years, this charmed land was discovered one morning, but pure and impure spring from different realms, so it soon returned to solitude. Wandering in the world, who can fathom what lies beyond its clamor and dust. 0, how I long to rise into thin air and ride the wind in search of my own kind.

 

(From The Selected Poems of T’ao Ch’ien, translated by David Hinton)

Edited August 28, 2015 by Yueya

[Marblehead]

This is how I am and not simply an ideal.

Well, sure, there are certain things in my life that I would not compromise with.

 

I would never have compromised with my Army duties.  Accomplish the mission.  Period.  (And stay alive.)

 

And true, once the war has started the time for talking has ended.