No wealth redistribution, just a jubilee.

The Blur song?

Any Presidential candidate that quotes the Dying Spock's last words has my vote! Live long and prosper Xapi of Earth.

No song...a Jubilee.

...a Jubilee year is mentioned to occur every fifty years, in which slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven...

Cool, when is the next one coming?

Well, Xapi, I'm all for that. The more intellectual anti-communists are usually still for the needs of the many, it's just that they believe that this is most efficiently achieved by harnessing the selfishness of individuals through market economics. They would argue that communism removes necessary market signals that might lead to an overall decline in living standards rather than the steady increase we've been experiencing thanks to innovation fuelled by capitalism.

I like to think I'm more utilitarian than a moralist, and despite what many think, categorical imperative and utilitarianism are not completely mutually exclusive. Unfortunately there are still a lot of problems with utilitarianism, mostly stemming from various levels of knowledge and ignorance... ethics are tough. =(

Any thing can be carried to far, so how do you know when you have gone to far? To much redistribution can be counter productive, so do you start not knowing when to stop or if you can stop? Also does that also mean any few? Native Americans had an over adbundance of land and we redistrubed the land, so does that justify what happpened.

@Darwyn: Yes, but that only happened once - and wasn't it the idea of the beneficiaries family and friends anyway?

About the quote. I agree with it, but that's why we have taxes; so the poor (unemployed/disabled/illegal immigrants/lazy) can be supported by the state*. There are far more poor than rich, so the rich pay more in taxes and still have far more left over than the poor receive.

*supported by the state == given just enough that they don't take to the streets and overthrow the government while at the same time not costing the rich so much that they don't vote for the government at the next election.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

You realize that they contradicted that phrase in all the Star Trek movies, right? The other member of the Enterprise crew took all kinds of risks for Spock that go against that saying. The real meaning of the films was that friendship meant putting yourself in harm's way to help out someone you care about.

It was not about wealth redistribution at all in the context Spock used it. It was about laying down your life for your friends'. You're extrapolating quite a bit here.

@Speaker: what you said works well in thory, but the system is entirely too easy to manipulate. That's what needs to be fixed, but no one seems willing to make an attempt at some serious, and much-needed reform.

members

@ Invictus Parphrased. "A man does not fight and die for God and country,or even his love ones at safe at home. He does so for his friends and companions standing next to him."

Right on.

While I too agree with this statement as a general rule. This notion is at odds with other important ideas of individual liberty. And general statements favoring individual liberty will be as favorably received as Spock's dying words. Societies ruled by either of these extreme ideals, collectivism or libertarian individualism are not pleasant places to live. The American experiment is to balance these ideals to enjoy the fruits of both general principles together. So we will always loose some desirable aspects of one for the other. Democracy is a collective. Throughout history democracy has tended to do no better at protecting individual liberty than tyrants, kings, General Secretariats, Fuhrers, etc. In the American system the individual is granted a set of rights which hopefully guarantees individual freedom at the same time as establishing a union to pursue our collective needs. Things are not perfect, but we have a system that allows for improvement in a collective manor yet attempts to protect the individual liberties we have deem inalienable. Throughout our history we have moved between the values of collectivism and individualism in a fairly pragmatic way. At any one time there will seem to be an imbalance of emphasis between the two philosophies. Our struggle is to constantly fight to preserve the positive aspects of both. While there are a few countries that are on par with us in this struggle, even a few that out do us at times, I think we have been successful in accomplishing our mission statement.

So, american ideals are a more complex form of "Goldilocks Syndrome"?
Try and get in the precise middle of two opposite ideals, hoping to gain the best of both, with minimal negative side-effects? (ie: bed too big, bed too small)

Not a bad analogy. We have to decide between avoidance and attraction.

I am American. I believe in this statement very strongly. I believe the capitalist system works neither for nor against this proposition, and that it is contigent on the people themselves, whether or not they act on the statement, as to whether or not it is practiced.

Chris - I think Kant might take issue with your claim that the categorical imperative isn't incompatible with utilitarianism. They might coincidentally coincide, but it should be pointed out that even taking such relative considerations into account is a betrayal of the working principle behind categorical imperative.

Redistribution of wealth is extreme and (in my opinion) unecessary. What matters is that everyone is given equal opportunity to succeed - wealth should be irrelevant in education, ie free universities and a totally nationalized education system. This means the richer people don't get the upper hand by paying for private education. Essentially, everyone get's the same opportunities and it is down to the individual whether they put the work in to capitalise on them to secure their future.

I was born as an individual. I will be damned if I become part of the Obama Socialist Collective.

and thats whats wrong with the world

Money is the root of all evil.

Obama is acting more along the lines of capitalism and self-determinism than has been seen in any of the previous Republican administrations, stopping perhaps with Eisenhower... oh, right, the national roadways... never mind. Eisenhower, too.

BTW - please don't misinterpret Kant's categorical imperative and Mill's utilitarianism. They have differing locales and are therefore not mutually exclusive.

I agree with that as far as it goes. But I think that the basis of political morality is freedom; each person can decide for themself what they need (or want). I will happily agree that the freedom of the many outweighs the freedom of the few ... although these are not in conflict as often as you would expect with "needs".

@ Toby... what do you mean by "needs?"

@maintgallant:
Shouldn't you be asking me what I mean by "freedom"? My whole point is that other people should judge their own "needs".

But what if someone judges that they "Need" to kill people?

Do those people judge that they "need" to live?

OK, I guess I had better define freedom somewhat: The power to decide what to do in your own life.

So if A kills B (without B's consent, which you can usually assume is the case), then that's an obviously bigger assault on B's power to decide B's own life than anything that C would have to do to stop A. (If C has to use deadly force to stop A, then this is less obvious, so you should be very careful about using deadly force.)

I would actually rather say "want" than "need", lest we get into an argument over whether B could possibly "need" to kill A, or conversely whether A really "needs" to live. The argument goes through just as well with "want" as with "need" and doesn't bring up these side issues. So if I'm in the position to stop B, then I will, for the sake of A's freedom.