Need Help with debate

[Krypto-Communist]

I keep getting this moronic statement thrown at me and I was wondering if anyone can help?


This pretty much says it all. And guess who, they want to decide, what are the "basic necessities", and who gets them.

The only thing anyone should get for free, is the air they breathe. All else, they need to work for. Communists/socialists however, want to provide food, clothing, shelter, spending money, etc, to those too lazy to work, which makes me work twice as hard, which cuts into my ability to "pursue happiness".

As well as this statement:


Teach the poor person "to fish instead of giving them fish".

What if there's no pond to fish from?

I hate this stupid metaphor and they try to explain something complex as employment and economics with this stupid and not mention annoying, metaphor.

God I hate capitalists!

[quincunx5]

You don't hate capitalists. You hate the fact that we live in a world of scarcity.
You hate economics because it so plainly tell you why you can't have everything.
You don't like work, you want others to provide goods and services to you, without giving anything back in return.
You think having an opinion is more worthy than actually doing work.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Krypto-[email protected] 27 2005, 07:12 PM
I keep getting this moronic statement thrown at me and I was wondering if anyone can help?


This pretty much says it all. And guess who, they want to decide, what are the "basic necessities", and who gets them.

The only thing anyone should get for free, is the air they breathe. All else, they need to work for. Communists/socialists however, want to provide food, clothing, shelter, spending money, etc, to those too lazy to work, which makes me work twice as hard, which cuts into my ability to "pursue happiness".

As well as this statement:


Teach the poor person "to fish instead of giving them fish".

What if there's no pond to fish from?

I hate this stupid metaphor and they try to explain something complex as employment and economics with this stupid and not mention annoying, metaphor.

God I hate capitalists!
Tell 'em to read some of the theory before they tell you what comminist/socialist goals are. The whole idea is that workers fight for their group intrests themselves.

Then throw their metaphore right back at them. Socialism is all about teaching "a man to fish" we want the people who actually do all the labor to have controll and power since they are the ones creating all the production. Capitalism is teaching a man to fish, having him fish for the teacher for 8 hours a day and reciving only the tails in repayment for the dozens of fish he caught each day (two weeks after he caught all thoes fish).

No, pond? that's not the problem, the problem is that all the ponds are owned by capitalists. We want workers to take back thoes ponds so that then they get to decide what to do with the fish they catch.

As far as people "too lazy to work", who's he talking about? Investors? Socialism is a "worker's democracy", rule by the workers... how'd he get rule by the "lazy" from that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You don't hate capitalists. You hate the fact that we live in a world of scarcity.

World of scarcity? Is that why companies have to lay people off because production is too high? It's a world of scarcity for most but only because the few own all the surpluss. Really, go read up on the depression, things were scarse for people not because there were shortages, but because there was overproduction. The government pays farmers not to produce so that the market isn't flooded and food looses monitary value.


You hate economics because it so plainly tell you why you can't have everything.
You can't even get it together to make a real point here. What is this? A line of bad poetry?


You don't like work, you want others to provide goods and services to you, without giving anything back in return.This is just laughable, this is what my boss wants, not me.


You think having an opinion is more worthy than actually doing work. More bad poetry lines.

Really, you seem to mistake socialism with a welfare state in capitalism. Socialism is a society run by workers, who since they are responsible for production, should have controll over it. If some people decided not to work in a socialist society, that would be fine by me if that's there choice. They could have a shelter and food provided for but they wouldn't get to vote in workplace councils and they would have reduced social power because they are basically taking themselves out of the place where societal power would rest.

If we work or don't we have no power in capitalism and we also have no choice to work or not. We have to work because we'd be homelss and without food otherwise (sometimes even when we are working) and we usually don't get to choose to work or not, the companies get to make that choice for us.

[Forward Union]

"sell a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and you ruin a wonderful business opportunity" - Marx

[Freedom Works]

World of scarcity? Is that why companies have to lay people off because production is too high?
No, it's because of lack of profit.


It's a world of scarcity for most but only because the few own all the surpluss.
Who?


Really, go read up on the depression, things were scarse for people not because there were shortages, but because there was overproduction.
Actually it was because the "government" was interfering.


The government pays farmers not to produce so that the market isn't flooded and food looses monitary value.
Cheap food is a bad thing? Not for the poor. Steal the money from the rich to make them less rich so that food costs more for them? What a great plan! (not)


This is just laughable, this is what my boss wants, not me.
Maybe if your boss is a "government" worker. Otherwise, he seeks profit.


Socialism is a society run by workers, who since they are responsible for production, should have controll over it.
Imagine I am wittling. Does my hand own the finished product, or my brain?


If we work or don't we have no power in capitalism and we also have no choice to work or not.
You are thinking State-Capitalism.


We have to work because we'd be homelss and without food otherwise (sometimes even when we are working) and we usually don't get to choose to work or not, the companies get to make that choice for us.
Yes, we are all mindless slaves to the multinational corporations. Wait a second, nope!

[quincunx5]

Really, go read up on the depression, things were scarse for people not because there were shortages, but because there was overproduction.


Overproduction that resulted from atificially lowering interest rates and expanding credit.
Real production should reflect real invested capital not artificially produced currency.

Government interference directly led to the great depression and government interference created a prolonged depression.

The great depression was not confined just to the US. All countries worsened their depression by closing up trade and getting off the gold standard, all at the same time.



The government pays farmers not to produce so that the market isn't flooded and food looses monitary value.


If these farmers were not paid, they would have to seek employement in another line of work. Hence reducing the amount of food on the market. A balance will be reached without government interference.

Why should the public pay thrice? Once to have the farmers not work, a second time for the high food prices, and a third time for those that are disadvantaged and cannot afford the high food prices.



You can't even get it together to make a real point here. What is this? A line of bad poetry?


No, it's reality.



This is just laughable, this is what my boss wants, not me.


If your boss is not paying for your work, you must be an idiot for working for him.



If some people decided not to work in a socialist society, that would be fine by me if that's there choice. They could have a shelter and food provided for but they wouldn't get to vote in workplace councils and they would have reduced social power because they are basically taking themselves out of the place where societal power would rest.


And in my society (libertarian/an-cap) people are free to claim any unused land for themselves, and provide food and shelter for themselves.

Your socialist society is no different from current capitalism at all!

Those who do not work have safety nets. They have less social power because they simply choose to not work.

Why are you advocating for the status quo?



If we work or don't we have no power in capitalism and we also have no choice to work or not. We have to work because we'd be homelss and without food otherwise (sometimes even when we are working) and we usually don't get to choose to work or not, the companies get to make that choice for us.


Guess what, buddy, if you want to live like the rest, you have to work like the rest. Period.

[Commie-Pinko]

You ought to work and earn what you get, but for people who are honestly disabled or in hard times, they should get temporary assistance so they don't die. There should be a minimum standard of living for those who cannot afford it. This does not mean cable, DSL, lots of appliances--this means food, water, an adequate shelter, medicine etc. Necessities.

SHould everyone be provided with necessities? No. Those who cannot afford them should untill they can afford them. This applies especially to people w/dependents.

[quincunx5]

but for people who are honestly disabled or in hard times, they should get temporary assistance so they don't die. There should be a minimum standard of living for those who cannot afford it.


And you don't think that this can be done by private means?



SHould everyone be provided with necessities? No. Those who cannot afford them should untill they can afford them. This applies especially to people w/dependents.


So one is free to have as many dependants as they want, and have someone else pick up the tab?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Overproduction that resulted from atificially lowering interest rates and expanding credit.
Real production should reflect real invested capital not artificially produced currency.

Government interference directly led to the great depression and government interference created a prolonged depression.

The great depression was not confined just to the US. All countries worsened their depression by closing up trade and getting off the gold standard, all at the same time.

No, my point is that there was an economic crisis not because of scacity to counter your argument that people go without the things they need because we live "in a world of scarcity".

We don't live in a world of scarcity as far as our ability to produce. THis is what capitalism and the industrial revolution accomplished that was good, but the same system gets in the way of fufilling this potential by creating poverty for the very people who's labor goes into production.


Your socialist society is no different from current capitalism at all!Except that workers are the bosses, it's an inversion of capitalist hierarchy really.


Guess what, buddy, if you want to live like the rest, you have to work like the rest. Period.What an amazingly stupid comment. And how do the rest work? Oh I guess poor people just arn't working hard enough. Paris Hilton on the other hand... oh my god she doubbled the production in her line at the factory; or her numbers were way up at the office!

On second thought, this comment is onto something. Let me correct it: If you want to live; you have to work for a boss. You could apply your statement to surfs: If you want to live on the lord's land, you have to work for the lord.

It's meaningless, of course you have to work, the question is under what arrangement that work is done... a surf-landlord arrangement, a master-slave arrangement, a wage-earner-boss arrangement, or democratically and cooperatively.

[quincunx5]

No, my point is that there was an economic crisis not because of scacity to counter your argument that people go without the things they need because we live "in a world of scarcity".


Scarcity always applies.



but the same system gets in the way of fufilling this potential by creating poverty for the very people who's labor goes into production.


Don't be stupid. The people you speak of were in poverty before their labor went into production.

This is not the fault of capitalism, but government.



Except that workers are the bosses, it's an inversion of capitalist hierarchy really.


I see. You really have no problem with Capitalism, you just don't like who has the capital. What a bigot.



What an amazingly stupid comment. And how do the rest work? Oh I guess poor people just arn't working hard enough. Paris Hilton on the other hand... oh my god she doubbled the production in her line at the factory; or her numbers were way up at the office!


Different line of works yields different amount of wealth. Just the fact that you use her name makes her richer. Good job.

Contrary to what you might think, she does work.



On second thought, this comment is onto something. Let me correct it: If you want to live; you have to work for a boss. You could apply your statement to surfs: If you want to live on the lord's land, you have to work for the lord.


You can work for a boss, you can work for yourself, you can work with your friends, you can buy some land and provide for yourself that way. There are choices.



It's meaningless, of course you have to work, the question is under what arrangement that work is done... a surf-landlord arrangement, a master-slave arrangement, a wage-earner-boss arrangement, or democratically and cooperatively.


Of course you can work democractically and cooperatively, and you can do this in a capitalist system.

But the general welfare will be lower than the wage-earner arrangement.

[Commie-Pinko]

And you don't think that this can be done by private means

How much do YOU donate to charity?

No, it can't. It never has, and there's never been any evidence in can. Charity compliments welfare, but can never replace it and get the same or equal level of amelioration. Charity is unreliable, people don't have goodwill in general because they work off rational-self interest. In relation to rational self-interest, even if you cut taxes,they probably will donate more than normally, but there's still zero evidence they will donate enough, because many people will spend it on themselves first or they will donate it to other, less important charities they have some personal connection to, like Friends of Animals, PETA, or some stupid environmental organization like greenpeace. They will also waste money giving it to Churches and religious sects, which then use the money to help build more statues on Christian college campuses like the ridicoulsly ornate Georgeian Court in New Jersey. Lotsa money going to good use there!

Where do you think Churches get money? THey aren't taxed, since they are exempt. They therefore use donations to do everything, and they spend vast sums on their own greedy asses.

Just to accentuate how unreliable relying on personal charitiy is, many "charities" who helped in the Katrina catastrophy are not asking the fucking government to pay them back." They spent too much and nearly went broke just fixing ONE temporary problem, let along a neverending, long term problem. Further, you have a lot of people who will drop a few bucks in a tin at a restaurant, saying "well, I did my good deed for the year!" "time to buy another sweater for my dog scrappy!"

People would rather spend on themselves buying nice clothes, a fancy dinner, vacations, etc than help poor people, on average.

Sorry. I wouldn't rely on the goodwill of anyone to do anything for anyone. That's why Communism doesn't work. It's fantasy. People don't do anything unless they are ordered to. Society would never work on the wanked out Libertarian Dream of Little or no government. No one gives a shit unless it's their own ass on the line. Then it all changes.




So one is free to have as many dependants as they want, and have someone else pick up the tab?

This is a problem with many people nowadays. All they do is think in terms of ethical egoism and rational self-interst. You don't look at ethics from a broad perspetive, but instead you immediately imply "what am I benefiting from out of this deal?" "How do I get something?" "Why do I have to invest in poor people?" You treat ethics like an investment opportunity, which is absurdly black and white. Are you one of those people who just goes "I have to pay? fuck that!"? If so, there's no point in talking ethics with you.

Ignoring the plight of dependents who didn't cause their own problem is highly disutilitous and totally ignoring Kantian human dignity considerations. You have to consider a lot of factors, including prima facie duties, utility, etc when making ethical decisions.

Do you actually use what we call "ethics" at all, or are you just an alien, morally bankrupt person? Have you ever actually learned ethical theory? There's a lot more than "ME ME ME ME ME egoism ME ME ME ME!" and "Do I HAVE to help?" To ethics.

[Commie-Pinko]

Different line of works yields different amount of wealth. Just the fact that you use her name makes her richer. Good job.

Contrary to what you might think, she does work.


HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAH AHA HAH AHAHAH AHAHA H Paris...HAHAHAH Hilton, HAHAHAHAHHAHAH

SHe's a worthless cum guzzling celebrity because her daddy left her millions. SHe's fucking stupid, has no education, sucks at acting, yet morons like her. The sheep mentality of the public is what makes her successful. She's worthless to humanity otherwise.

[quincunx5]

This is a problem with many people nowadays. All they do is think in terms of ethical egoism and rational self-interst. You don't look at ethics from a broad perspetive, but instead you immediately imply "what am I benefiting from out of this deal?" "How do I get something?" "Why do I have to invest in poor people?" You treat ethics like an investment opportunity, which is absurdly black and white. Are you one of those people who just goes "I have to pay? fuck that!"? If so, there's no point in talking ethics with you.


You think the people getting the help are ethical? You think they consider anyone else but themselves? Get real.

They do not consider anyone else, and I shouldn't be forced against my will to consider them.

It is unethical to force someone to pay for something they don't want to. IT is no different than enslaving someone. Where is the ethics there?



Do you actually use what we call "ethics" at all, or are you just an alien, morally bankrupt person? Have you ever actually learned ethical theory?


Moral and ethical theory teaches one that it is IMMORAL and UNETHICAL to force people into whatever moral or ethical standards you concoct.

Why don't you learn it yourself.



No, it can't. It never has, and there's never been any evidence in can.


IT may not be up to your high 'moral' standards, but it has worked.



That's why Communism doesn't work. It's fantasy.


Agree with you there.



Society would never work on the wanked out Libertarian Dream of Little or no government. No one gives a shit unless it's their own ass on the line. Then it all changes.


Here I do not. Tell me something, what is the right amount of government according to you?

What role should the government play in helping poverty? What is the right amount of wealth distribution?

There is no poverty in a Libertarian society, because anyone is free to claim unused land for themselves. They are free to employ their own labor to survive and prosper. There is no need to rely on the goodwill of someone else, but if it comes along you are free to accept it.

---

You actually think that heavily taxing the rich will yield good results?

You think taking money out of the productive sector will make life better for the poor?



SHe's a worthless cum guzzling celebrity because her daddy left her millions. SHe's fucking stupid, has no education, sucks at acting, yet morons like her. The sheep mentality of the public is what makes her successful. She's worthless to humanity otherwise.


That's just your opinion (and very close to mine), but your opinion alone doesn't matter.

She must be worth something, for you to take the time to bash her, nay?

[PJ O'Rourke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:23 PM
We don't live in a world of scarcity as far as our ability to produce. THis is what capitalism and the industrial revolution accomplished that was good, but the same system gets in the way of fufilling this potential by creating poverty for the very people who's labor goes into production.

I am sorry mister economist, do you know what scarcity is in economic context? If you have a dollar you can either:
a) save
b) spend
You cannot do both. This is scarcity. Of course, this is basic economic theory which most of you lack, but in the real world scarcity is quite an important thing. You can eat an apple or decide to dig a hole, wait some years, and have 50 apples every year. Even in Commie City, where all things are in abundance, you'd still have scarcity. (Of course, you would all be dead as you have killed markets and Bureaucracy Inc couldn't decide how to best allocate all the resources)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by PJ O'[email protected] 29 2005, 06:04 PM
You cannot do both. This is scarcity. Of course, this is basic economic theory which most of you lack, but in the real world scarcity is quite an important thing.
You are correct in your terminology. However one thing that is often rarely concieved is that scarcity exists only in one sense at a time. That is economic or in the sense akin to rareness.

There is no denying scarcity in your context it is simply true, although it does not have to have the economic implications that you assume. The idea is human wants are infinite, and the market distributes goods via supply and demand yes? Well the idea of communism is not just all sharing nicely while a state beurocracy fucks it up, it is something closer to what I assume you advocate, than you think.

For collectivism to work, a situation must come about where there is no benifit to be had from having more than you need. People and their infinite wants may choose to have 10000 loaves of bread, but in a system where you can't sell this bread there is no benifit to be had from greed.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Take a few minutes and analyze capitalist economics.
Then you'll see what a crock of shit it is...

Capital is a social power. It only exists as the result of the work of all members of a society. For a wealthy elite to reap this product and power and use the slim possibility of acquiring it as an incentive for workers to sell their labor is not democracy.

[Freedom Works]

Capital is a social power. It only exists as the result of the work of all members of a society. For a wealthy elite to reap this product and power and use the slim possibility of acquiring it as an incentive for workers to sell their labor is not democracy.
You make it sound like capitalists snatch the product right from the worker, but nothing could be further from the truth.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Nothing is further from the truth? Really?
How about that the workers steal it from the capitalists.
I bet you honestly believe that, don't you?
Those damn single working moms on welfare leaching off public money unjustly taxed from the wealthy.

:lol:

idiot

[Freedom Works]

Nothing is further from the truth? Really?
Yes, the worker voluntarily gives up the profit for the security and ease of working.

[Freedom Works]

Nothing is further from the truth? Really?
Yes, the worker voluntarily gives up the profit for the security and ease of working.


Those damn single working moms on welfare leaching off public money unjustly taxed from the wealthy.
If only those 'wealthy' who are taxed could keep their money and compete with it, then the single working mom would get more bang for her buck.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Supply-side economics don't work at all.

The pay increases only affect the upper-income level employees and employment has no risen. Since George Bush did his tax cuts, unemployment has actually incrased.

[Freedom Works]

Since George Bush did his tax cuts, unemployment has actually incrased.
Since American Liberals have implemented minimum wage laws, unemployment is artificially kept high.

[quincunx5]

Every decrease in taxes bring MORE revenue.

Of course this is so well known that the politicians depend on this to put even more social programs into existence. That's what causes a debt; not lack of revenue, but misprediction of revenue, and run away spending.



The pay increases only affect the upper-income level employees and employment has no risen.


The hell it does. The lower taxes effect the majority of the population (ex Bush's 2001 tax cuts effect everyone equal to or above 25% bracket: the majority).



Since George Bush did his tax cuts, unemployment has actually incrased.


It increased at first, and then decreased to a level below start. Facts are stubborn things.

---

What amazes me is that you attribute tax cuts as the most important reason for unemployment.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Since American Liberals have implemented minimum wage laws, unemployment is artificially kept high.

Are you saying employment would be higher with no minimum wage?
Do you think no minimum wage is just?

I'm not advocating liberalism here, just denouncing supply-side economics.


The hell it does. The lower taxes effect the majority of the population (ex Bush's 2001 tax cuts effect everyone equal to or above 25% bracket: the majority).

You shoudl read before replying, idiot.
I said the wage/salary increases that supposedly occur when tax cuts are given... in general only benefit the higher income employees.


What amazes me is that you attribute tax cuts as the most important reason for unemployment.

You clearly misinterpreted what I wrote. Where did I imply this? My point is that tax cuts don't increase employment like some people claim.

[quincunx5]

Are you saying employment would be higher with no minimum wage?


Duh!



Do you think no minimum wage is just?


Yes. Everyone earns their marginal productivity.



I'm not advocating liberalism here, just denouncing supply-side economics.


Supply side economics would not need to exist if their was no tax to collect in the first place.
You are either for expansion of government or it's demise. Supply side economics is a compromise and as such is not a clear ideology.



I said the wage/salary increases that supposedly occur when tax cuts are given... in general only benefit the higher income employees.


What are you smoking? Wages and salaries do not increase as a result of tax cuts. You simply keep more of the money you earned.

Those who are most productive get to keep more of their income. That is all.

The bulk of this money will end up stimulating the economy, by creating more demand for goods and services, and by increasing real savings. This will create more demand for labor, and hence decrease unemployment.



You clearly misinterpreted what I wrote. Where did I imply this? My point is that tax cuts don't increase employment like some people claim.


That's because those two things are never isolated. Any studies in the correlation between the two is going to be faulty by nature. Inflation and Labor Unions are even bigger factors in unemployment.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yes. Everyone earns their marginal productivity.

Basically what you're saying is that you want people to starve and die.


What are you smoking? Wages and salaries do not increase as a result of tax cuts. You simply keep more of the money you earned.

The premise of supply-side economic is that tax cuts for the wealthy (supply-side) stimulate the economy, create more jobs, and increases wages. This isn't true, though... invalidating trickle-down economics.


That's because those two things are never isolated. Any studies in the correlation between the two is going to be faulty by nature. Inflation and Labor Unions are even bigger factors in unemployment.

Then why the fuck would you lower taxes with the intention of creating jobs if it's impact on job creation isn't sufficiently significant to accomplish your goal of creating jobs?

[Freedom Works]

Basically what you're saying is that you want people to starve and die.
Basically what you're saying is that you want people to steal from other people so they won't starve and die.


Then why the fuck would you lower taxes with the intention of creating jobs if it's impact on job creation isn't sufficiently significant to accomplish your goal of creating jobs?
Because the intention is not to create jobs - it's to let people have their own money!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Basically what you're saying is that you want people to steal from other people so they won't starve and die.

That sounds mighty fine with me.

Although I wouldn't call it stealing.
Like I wrote before, capital is something that belongs to the working class as a whole, not the capitalists. So to "steal" goods from them is really just taking back what's yours.


Because the intention is not to create jobs - it's to let people have their own money!

The intention of trickel-down economics is to create jobs and increase salaraies. Hence the term "trickle-down". Of course, technically you're right... it certainly doesn't accomplish this.
It really does just what you said... gives capitalists more of our money.

[quincunx5]

Basically what you're saying is that you want people to starve and die.


No. All I said is everyone earns their marginal productivity.

It has nothing to do with what I 'want'. All people could feed themselves, if governments would just disappear.



The premise of supply-side economic is that tax cuts for the wealthy (supply-side) stimulate the economy, create more jobs, and increases wages. This isn't true, though... invalidating trickle-down economics.


Trickle-Down Theory is a popular political red herring. There is no economist of any school of thought that has ever claimed such a thing.

The worker gets paid first and foremost. Anything that is left over goes to the investor as profits. This is Trickle-Up, and that is how it has always been.

The whole concept of supply-side economics is totally useless. If governments never grew out of their basic premise (defence, police, courts), it would have no role in controlling the economy.

But the government does strongly control the economy and it does so poorly.



Then why the fuck would you lower taxes with the intention of creating jobs if it's impact on job creation isn't sufficiently significant to accomplish your goal of creating jobs?


You seem to be confused how government works. Thee left hand lowers taxes, the right hand prints more money, the left foot helps big corporations, the right foot controls trade, and the head thinks of new places to wage war on.

You understand? Political competition ensures that the government will never do anything right most of the time.

It's difficult to isolate any action in government. But what is known in supply side economics is that historically every tax DECREASE has led to an INCREASE in tax revenue.