Majority vs Minority-A question for socialists

[cappiej]

When being asked about the welfare state Milton Friedman argued against it on two basic principles, firstly its coercive and secondly he asked, is it really fair to take from the 95% who don't rely on social security for the benefit of the 5% who do?

Similarly, leftists tend to portray themselves as representatives of the people, of the great bulk of the people rather, if its fair to take from the bourgeoise because they're a minority and it would benefit the majority why is it fair to take from the majority to benefit the minority as regards social welfare?

[Dust Bunnies]

When being asked about the welfare state Milton Friedman argued against it on two basic principles, firstly its coercive and secondly he asked, is it really fair to take from the 95% who don't rely on social security for the benefit of the 5% who do?

Socialists don't seek to make a welfare state, we seek to make a society ran by the workers. But what you say is incorrect, most people will use Social Security eventually. When they're retired they get money. I'm not sure but does Social Security pay unemployment? I don't know about you but I'd love a couple bucks every month when I'm old.

Similarly, leftists tend to portray themselves as representatives of the people, of the great bulk of the people rather, if its fair to take from the bourgeoise because they're a minority and it would benefit the majority why is it fair to take from the majority to benefit the minority as regards social welfare?

Like I said above Socialists/Communist's goals are not to make a Swedish Welfare State. We wish to overthrow the ruling class and establish a society ran by the workers. We are so opposed to the bourgeois because they exploit the proletariat. It isn't fair that the bourgeois can sip some Martinis while in a nice big pool in the back of their country club while a person in a 3rd world country has to work hard just to eat a small meal.

Last time I checked also, the majority (proletariat) benefit from social welfare, not the minority.


Just to zoom in on a specific quote:

Similarly, leftists tend to portray themselves as representatives of the people, of the great bulk of the people rather,if its fair to take from the bourgeoise because they're a minority and it would benefit the majority

Well normally you want to help the majority especially when the minority is not exactly the nicest people.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

When being asked about the welfare state Milton Friedman argued against it on two basic principles, firstly its coercive and secondly he asked, is it really fair to take from the 95% who don't rely on social security for the benefit of the 5% who do?

So in other words you're arguing that it's unfair to take from those who work to help those who don't...

Seems like a hypocritical argument from the likes of you and Friedman.

[cappiej]

So in other words you're arguing that it's unfair to take from those who work to help those who don't...

Seems like a hypocritical argument from the likes of you and Friedman.

Yes its unfair to someone's money and give it to someone else.

Don't think it hasn't crossed my mind that this system could leave people starving but property rights are sacred.

I'm not being heartless, maybe those people could get charity?

[Dust Bunnies]

Yes its unfair to someone's money and give it to someone else.

I'm a bit of a noob in economics but if I'm not mistaken, everytime a Capitalist makes a profit it is from using the proletariat's labor. The proletariat is not getting fully paid for what he produced.

Don't think it hasn't crossed my mind that this system could leave people starving but property rights are sacred.

People starve now, people will starve even more. I don't think a big Capitalist would miss a couple $100,000.

I'm not being heartless, maybe those people could get charity?

Charity cannot help for everything and IMO very inefficient. People will donate to charities like "Make a Wish Foundation" while people are starving or undernourished. Many charities are also donated to by rich people for the tax deductible power it has. Also, many charities have their funds taken out by their leader, the money should go to those in need not those in greed.

[cappiej]

I'm a bit of a noob in economics but if I'm not mistaken, everytime a Capitalist makes a profit it is from using the proletariat's labor. The proletariat is not getting fully paid for what he produced.



People starve now, people will starve even more. I don't think a big Capitalist would miss a couple $100,000.



Charity cannot help for everything and IMO very inefficient. People will donate to charities like "Make a Wish Foundation" while people are starving or undernourished. Many charities are also donated to by rich people for the tax deductible power it has. Also, many charities have their funds taken out by their leader, the money should go to those in need not those in greed.

The worker is getting paid a wage he agreed to, of course the owner must sell his product for more, because otherwise there is no incentive.

And also, how would you quantify what someone's service is worth? Let's say a computer sells for £1000, it could have taken 100 people in 10 different countries to build this product and another 10 people in the UK to bring this product to the consumer who will pay for it.

Under the present system its very simple, the retailer buys 1000 units at £500 each, he then hires people to do the actual business of selling the machines because his operation grows too big for him to do it alone. They get a pretty sweet deal actually (the workers that is), because even if none of those 1000 units are sold they still get their cheque, unlike the entrepreuner who has taken a risk.

No, they might not miss a few hundred thousand pounds, or dollars, but that's besides the point. If you take £10 out of my bank account it won't be the end of the world, I may not even notice, but its still wrong.

[Dust Bunnies]

The worker is getting paid a wage he agreed to, of course the owner must sell his product for more, because otherwise there is no incentive.

The worker agrees to the wage? Sure he takes the job but I rarely see at a job interview a guy sitting down and says, "I want all my labor is worth as a pay." The Capitalist selling the labor is what we try to eliminate, we don't want the Capitalist so that the worker gets the full fruits of his work.

And also, how would you quantify what someone's service is worth? Let's say a computer sells for £1000, it could have taken 100 people in 10 different countries to build this product and another 10 people in the UK to bring this product to the consumer who will pay for it.

Like I said in another thread, I'm a bit nooby on economics, I'll get back to you on that one day. But this old Capitalist system of investing and such and your money "growing" magically won't exist. Say bye bye to banks. Currency will be a direct translation of how much you worked.

Under the present system its very simple, the retailer buys 1000 units at £500 each, he then hires people to do the actual business of selling the machines because his operation grows too big for him to do it alone. They get a pretty sweet deal actually (the workers that is), because even if none of those 1000 units are sold they still get their cheque, unlike the entrepreuner who has taken a risk.

So if none of the 1000 units are sold you think the Capitalist won't fire the employees or take away benefits or lay them off? Right now, not all the 1000 computers are selling and what is happening? Capitalists are laying people off.

No, they might not miss a few hundred thousand pounds, or dollars, but that's besides the point. If you take £10 out of my bank account it won't be the end of the world, I may not even notice, but its still wrong.

I hope you are in dire economic straits, when you pay for social welfare in a sense it is insurance for you too, since when you are in their position you get that other guy's 10 pounds.

Thought you must remember, we do not seek to create a New Sweden, our final goal is to end exploitation and all Communist ideals have the end goal of ending the state.

"Communism can be summed up as the abolition of private property."-Karl Marx

[danyboy27]

from a purely capitalistic point of views stuff like welfare and free healthcare make sense a great deal.

you want your worker to be heathy, healtier people work better, eventually more hour. you want your worker to be worry-free for the future, if they know the governement will back them up when they will be older, it will make them a less great deal to win a little less and they are more happy.

i really dont know why has a capitalist you have something against free healthcare and welfare.

[cappiej]

The worker agrees to the wage? Sure he takes the job but I rarely see at a job interview a guy sitting down and says, "I want all my labor is worth as a pay." The Capitalist selling the labor is what we try to eliminate, we don't want the Capitalist so that the worker gets the full fruits of his work.



Like I said in another thread, I'm a bit nooby on economics, I'll get back to you on that one day. But this old Capitalist system of investing and such and your money "growing" magically won't exist. Say bye bye to banks. Currency will be a direct translation of how much you worked.



So if none of the 1000 units are sold you think the Capitalist won't fire the employees or take away benefits or lay them off? Right now, not all the 1000 computers are selling and what is happening? Capitalists are laying people off.



I hope you are in dire economic straits, when you pay for social welfare in a sense it is insurance for you too, since when you are in their position you get that other guy's 10 pounds.

Thought you must remember, we do not seek to create a New Sweden, our final goal is to end exploitation and all Communist ideals have the end goal of ending the state.

"Communism can be summed up as the abolition of private property."-Karl Marx

Very malicious of you, to wish that on someone.

Maybe if the original leach hadn't taken my £10 I could have put it into a pension fund or left it in my bank account to accumulate and then fallen back on it in hard times.

[cappiej]

from a purely capitalistic point of views stuff like welfare and free healthcare make sense a great deal.

you want your worker to be heathy, healtier people work better, eventually more hour. you want your worker to be worry-free for the future, if they know the governement will back them up when they will be older, it will make them a less great deal to win a little less and they are more happy.

i really dont know why has a capitalist you have something against free healthcare and welfare.

As I said, its about the principle of forcing someone to pay for someone else's healthcare, sorry but I really don't think its fair to make the healthy pay for the unhealthy or for the employed to pay for the unemployed.

Well if someone is unemployed then they're not a worker are they, so their happiness is immaterial, from a straightforward economic point of view (happy people cause fewer problems of course).

And the majority of workers can obtain health insurance anyway, also, the more you can make them the rely on you for their care the more leverage you can secure over them. If the government is the one they see as their master they are less likely to be obedient to you, as their employer.

These questions you ask are bringing out the carnivorous capitalist in me.

[danyboy27]

As I said, its about the principle of forcing someone to pay for someone else's healthcare, sorry but I really don't think its fair to make the healthy pay for the unhealthy or for the employed to pay for the unemployed.

Well if someone is unemployed then they're not a worker are they, so their happiness is immaterial, from a straightforward economic point of view (happy people cause fewer problems of course).

And the majority of workers can obtain health insurance anyway, also, the more you can make them the rely on you for their care the more leverage you can secure over them. If the government is the one they see as their master they are less likely to be obedient to you, as their employer.

These questions you ask are bringing out the carnivorous capitalist in me.

a health assurance can fuck you over small detail and will ask you to pay for x or y reason, those organisation seek profit, a national health system dosnt.

of course there is a minority of leech cheating, but its nowhere near important to actually affect the national healthcare system.

also, if you loose your job and for some reason you get sick during your 4 month of job search, you dont have to worry about your insurance, you go there and get cured.

to me, it dosnt make sense to mix money and health, and i am a capitalist.

[MarxSchmarx]

is it really fair to take from the 95% who don't rely on social security for the benefit of the 5% who do?

Is it really fair to take from the 99% who have to work and don't rely on their ownership of the means of production for the benefit of the 1% who do and therefore don't have to work?

Remind me, who is leeching off whom here?