Originally posted by whodey Wealth redistribution is indeed a facet of Marxism. So do you think that this facet has been a "good" contribution? Is this attack on private property a good thing?
In addition, you talk as if you disdain Marxism. In fact, everyone here does as well. So what specifically about Marx to you hate?
The concept of private property has been misinterpreted by people like Ayn Rand and then enshrined in it's new misinterpreted form. As James Madison pointed out, extreme wealth in the presence of poverty violates the right to ownership because it denies the poor the opportunity to earn property. However Rand and those like her assert that the right to ownership is intended to protect the property of the rich from the poor, based on the mistaken belief that anything that is owned was rightfully acquired and that people have no right to earn property, only to not have it taken away from them.
Of course in reality money laundering through inheritance laws and the like make a mockery of the "meritocracy" idea that Rand's Objectivism is based on, and a study of right theory demonstrates that people have a right to earn money as well as to keep what they have rightfully earned.
This term [property] in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage...
...Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected...
...That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where...monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called."
Originally posted by AThousandYoung The concept of private property has been misinterpreted by people like Ayn Rand and then enshrined in it's new misinterpreted form. As James Madison pointed out, extreme wealth in the presence of poverty violates the right to ownership because it denies the poor the opportunity to earn property. However Rand and those like her assert that the right March 29, 1792
So where do you see this imaginary line between rich and poor? Is it an income of $250,000 or more that was drawn by King Obama? You do realize, the more the government spends the lower this line is drawn. In fact, why not make universal health care truly universal? Why not have the "poor" in the US paying for the "poor" in Haiti, for example? Would Madison be in favor of this I wonder?
As far as monopolies go, I think the federal government has a pretty good monoploy in terms of wealth. Their incomes are the only ones going up and they appear not to have to pay taxes, or at least, those that were investigated because they were appointed to governmental positions by Obama. In addition, they write the tax laws for which they have ample oppurtunity to convolude them enough to evade them through various means. So when the "rich" in government begin to surpress the poor in the private sector, who is there to see to it that social justice occurs?
Eliminating the "class struggle" and putting all on equal ground to me is a picture of a perfect utopian society. Problem is we're not advanced, wise or mature enough as a species to embrace it. Just as in a utopian society there would not be individual governments because there wouldn't be a need for them. In a utopian society all would exist in a perfect anarchy and the "marxist" thought would be considered an absolute truth to pursue.
But we ain't there, yet. A thousand years, maybe? Two thousand?
Originally posted by badmoon Eliminating the "class struggle" and putting all on equal ground to me is a picture of a perfect utopian society. Problem is we're not advanced, wise or mature enough as a species to embrace it. Just as in a utopian society there would not be individual governments because there wouldn't be a need for them. In a utopian society all would exist in a perfe ...[text shortened]... ute truth to pursue.
But we ain't there, yet. A thousand years, maybe? Two thousand?
You mean like the changes that have occured over the last couple of thousand years? 😛
This is perhaps the biggest down falls of such idealistic political idiologies. They think mankind is "progressing". We should then have a "progressive" ideology in which man can evolve into something better. The reality is that one should take into account our core nature without such utopian like visions. And what is this core nature? It is power and influence. People will find a way to get ahead no matter the system in place. This means those calling the shots will always live like kings at the expense of those governed. This also means that those governed will find ways to get ahead themselves. This means they will find a legal means to do so or an illegal means. As we saw in the former USSR, there was not much ol a legal means to do so, in which event, a black market emerged that undermined the legitimate economy. If this is the route the US wants to take then so be it. Their economy will fail as well.
Originally posted by whodey So where do you see this imaginary line between rich and poor? Is it an income of $250,000 or more that was drawn by King Obama? You do realize, the more the government spends the lower this line is drawn. In fact, why not make universal health care truly universal? Why not have the "poor" in the US paying for the "poor" in Haiti, for example? Would Madi ...[text shortened]... ress the poor in the private sector, who is there to see to it that social justice occurs?
Well, since basically no one is starving anymore, you can draw the line between rich and poor at the point where people can choose their own path of life rather than having their actions dictated by the circumstances in which they were born (e.g. by not being able to access education, health care and/or a safe neighbourhood). Social mobility - the American Dream - depends on redistribution of wealth.
Originally posted by whodey You mean like the changes that have occured over the last couple of thousand years? 😛
This is perhaps the biggest down falls of such idealistic political idiologies. They think mankind is "progressing". We should then have a "progressive" ideology in which man can evolve into something better. The reality is that one should take into account our core ...[text shortened]... If this is the route the US wants to take then so be it. Their economy will fail as well.
Most of the MPs in our parliament cannot even afford a detached house. The prime minister makes less than $200k per year.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Most of the MPs in our parliament cannot even afford a detached house. The prime minister makes less than $200k per year.
Well in the US Vice President Biden is only worth $150,000 on paper and on paper could not afford it either. However, he has been in the Senate around 30 years making anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 per yaer during that time and lives on a compound with around five mansions on it. You tell me where his fortune is at. No doubt, it is in some offshore nontaxable account of some kind.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Well, since basically no one is starving anymore, you can draw the line between rich and poor at the point where people can choose their own path of life rather than having their actions dictated by the circumstances in which they were born (e.g. by not being able to access education, health care and/or a safe neighbourhood). Social mobility - the American Dream - depends on redistribution of wealth.
Indeed. Success depends upon the redistribution of wealth. However, does this depend on the government doing it artificially taking money off the top for themselves or going about it yourself?
Originally posted by whodey Well in the US Vice President Biden is only worth $150,000 on paper and on paper could not afford it either. However, he has been in the Senate around 30 years making anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 per yaer during that time and lives on a compound with around five mansions on it.
Joe Biden and his wife have given an average of $369 a year to charity over the last decade. Last year he made $319,853. In fact, the Vice President usually gives around 0.1% to 0.3% of his income as where according to the article the average familiy in the US gives around 3% of their yearly income. Of course, at the same time Biden and company are preaching to us about redistribution of wealth. Interesting isn't it?
Joe Biden and his wife have given an average of $369 a year to charity over the last decade. Last year he made $319,853. In fact, the Vice President usually gives around 0.1% to 0.3% of his income as where acc ...[text shortened]... me Biden and company are preaching to us about redistribution of wealth. Interesting isn't it?
Originally posted by whodey Well in the US Vice President Biden is only worth $150,000 on paper and on paper could not afford it either. However, he has been in the Senate around 30 years making anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 per yaer during that time and lives on a compound with around five mansions on it. You tell me where his fortune is at. No doubt, it is in some offshore nontaxable account of some kind.
Bas van der Vlies has been a Dutch MP for 29 years. He doesn't have a mansion. Really, your claim that every politician everywhere is just filling their pockets is blatantly false.
Originally posted by whodey Indeed. Success depends upon the redistribution of wealth. However, does this depend on the government doing it artificially taking money off the top for themselves or going about it yourself?
So when the "rich" in government begin to surpress the poor in the private sector, who is there to see to it that social justice occurs?
Curiously enough, the people who are there to see that social justice occurs are the voters, on whose favour the governing classes depend for their continuing tenure.
This means those calling the shots will always live like kings at the expense of those governed.
Until they are voted out, at which point they will have to stop.
Is Marxism "good"?
27 Feb '10 14:05
Back to Top