Maybe you haven't taken 3rd grade math Jamie:

"I think that allowing individuals to accrue wealth is unjust, because it inevitably leads to other people becoming poor."

With the application of basic mathematics, you should be able to deduce that from that statement, you assume that the wealth of the world is relatively constant. If one person loses from another's gain, they add to a constant, or relatively close. If it doesn't, your statement has no meaning.

No, rlumley, I don't accept that.

As long as resources are finite, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is directly linked to the poverty of the many.

@ Draugnar by the way you haven't yet repsonded to my point about scientists and financial incentive. I would be very interested in what you think of my response to the problem you raised.

I mean, do you really think that Albert Einstein, for example, was motivated primarily by money-grubbing financial gain during his remarkable scientific career? Because I don't. I think great scientists are generally motivated by sheer curiosity and the intellectual delight of solving great scienfitic problems.

That depends on how they get their wealth. Did Bill Gates become wealthy at the expense of the many? No, he brought wealth to millions, probably billions, when you consider all Microsoft has done, and by extension, all they have allowed others to do with the personal computer.

Do athletes become wealthy at the expense of the many? No... They bring tremendous utility to the economy in the form of entertainment, and probably increase productivity of the entire economy pretty significantly through increasing happiness levels.

Did Bernie Madoff aquire wealth at the expense of the many? Of course he did. But running a pyramid scheme (What the government happens to be doing RIGHT NOW) isn't creating wealth, it's stealing it. And theft, always has been, and always will be, illegal.

As to your point about scientists, yes. I do think that the majority don't work for money. But I would refuse to hold any job above a day laborer in a communist society, because I refuse to contribute to a philosophy and a society that claims that my work is not mine and that I have to right to what I produce.

I don't believe in the government redistributing money (Which is not wealth), but if they were going to do it, I'd argue that it is better for them to give it all to businesses, who would then use that to create more wealth.

You can call me greedy, and I will take that as the highest compliment. I do not accept your morality that good is self sacrifice for the sake of others. Need is no reason to me. I consider the Marx quote that you quoted earlier as one of the most evil statements in the history of mankind.

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those
who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that
it belongs to your neighbors--between those who preached that the
good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those
who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incomp-
etents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you
and that the good is to live it."

*No right

And that last quote (Obviously) was Ayn Rand.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. " - Galbraith

rumley, some of what you wrote above isn't wrong i give you that, however i disagree with guys who can run real fast, jump real long etc (alternatively called "athletes") bringing much economic benefit to nations, the Olympics has a long history of white elephants and vanity projects that sit unused afterwards.

but mainly your belief that the Marx quotes was " one of the most evil statements in the history of humankind" is a bit of hyperbolic nonsense.

Sean. Provide some backing for your statements if you want me to consider them valid. kthxbye.

@Jamie - what you fail to recognize is communism doesn't allow for one person to get ahead. You claim to be a communist but your statements about every need being met then allowing luxuries based on contribution is not communism.

Communism is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless and stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. As such, there is no ownership and there is nobody with more than anyone else. In short, either everyone has the exact same luxury or no one has it and the world will NOT work that way. What you are presenting is socially responsible capitalism and is what I would accept. But before you espouse the benefits of communism, you need to understand what communism is.

Re: Scientists - many do their research because they love their work, but the companies who turn that research into product do it for profit. And I don't know of any engineer who design widgets and bridges and stuff solely because they love their work. They expect to get paid.

Re: the problems with our present democracy (including inheritance). I already said we need to change the attitudes and mores of people from within society to fix those problems. You can't legislate morality and social responsibility. People have to WANT to do the right thing.

Now, I would suggest you go research what communism really is, because what you present as being your view of it isn't what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IQ_curve.svg

This is the chart for the range of intelligence quotient throughout all of humanity. As you can see, Draugnar is somewhere off the charts. As he believes the average user here is.

@ rlumley: "You can call me greedy, and I will take that as the highest compliment"

Ok. I am happy to call you that. You are a greedy, selfish person.

"I consider the Marx quote that you quoted earlier as one of the most evil statements in the history of mankind"

You think it is evil for a society to attempt to ensure that all the members of that society are able to have their basic needs met? You think it is evil to attempt to eradicate poverty? In what way is this "evil"? Disagreeing with it as an economic model is one thing, but calling it "evil" is quite another. Please explain your use of the word "evil" in this context.

"As to your point about scientists, yes. I do think that the majority don't work for money. But I would refuse to hold any job above a day laborer in a communist society, because I refuse to contribute to a philosophy and a society that claims that my work is not mine and that I have to right to what I produce."

Firstly, on that basis, you are failing the "from each according to his ability" test, so society would be under no obligation to meet your needs.

Secondly, I imagine someone of your intelligence might find the job of a menial labourer very dull and tiring. If you would really be willing to deliberately lower your own quality of life in that way, you would only have yourself to blame for the drab existence you would end up leading. The knowledge that one is fulfilling one's potential is a reward in itself, no?

@Centurian - the typical IQ test maxes out between 135 and 155, depending on the exact test. I max those tests. The last hi IQ test I took (a MENSA sponsored one) come out at 161.

And yes, I believe this site has a significantly above average intellect amongst it's regular participants.

@ Jamiet:

It is evil because it expects man to live for his brother. Man should live for himself, and no one else.

I'm glad society would be under no obligation to meet my needs. Because I am not so pathetically helpless as to need them to meet my needs. I depend on myself and no one else.

And I would find being a day labourer incredibly tedious and boring. And I would hate my work. But I would rather be bored to tears than contribute to a society that requires that I construct the noose with which they will hang me.

Wow. Anyone who needs someone else to meet their needs is pathetically halpless?

I'd call that line of thought evil.

How so Xapi?

Any normal person should be able to meet his own needs.

Alright then.

Execute the handicapped, abort the children of the poor and nuke the undeveloped countries.

@ Draugnar: (in response to your post timed at 4.10pm - I am still catching up with the thread it seems)

"what you fail to recognize is communism doesn't allow for one person to get ahead. You claim to be a communist but your statements about every need being met then allowing luxuries based on contribution is not communism."

I did not say "allowing luxuries based on contribution" in the way I think you are implying. I said that once everyone's needs are met, it may be possible to have some luxuries. But those luxuries should be shared fairly.


"Communism is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless and stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. As such, there is no ownership and there is nobody with more than anyone else. In short, either everyone has the exact same luxury or no one has it and the world will NOT work that way. What you are presenting is socially responsible capitalism and is what I would accept. But before you espouse the benefits of communism, you need to understand what communism is."

No Draugnar, your're mistaken here. Firstly you fail to take account for the fact that one person's needs may be different to those of another. Communism as a means of economic distribution is about ensuring that everyone in society's needs are met. Someone with a medical condition which requires them to take medication four times a day consumes more resources than an otherwise identical person who does not have that illness. To apply the crude rule "everyone should get the same" as you are implying would either mean that both men would be given the medicine, which is absurd as only one of them needs it, or that neither would get it, which does not make sense either.

So when you say "either everyone has the exact same luxury or no one has it":

1. This is correct if you mean "the same LEVEL of luxury"
2. but not correct if you mean "if I have a new car then everyone else in the country must be given that exact same model of car at the same time" you are wrong. tHey could choose other, different luxuries of approximately the same value, certainly. It depends what you mean by "the exact same".


"Re: Scientists - many do their research because they love their work, but the companies who turn that research into product do it for profit. And I don't know of any engineer who design widgets and bridges and stuff solely because they love their work. They expect to get paid."

And they would get paid. Communism isn't about expecting people to work for free. It is about paying them at a level which would secure them a decent standard of living and, at the same time, to allow all other productive citizens to have a similarly decent standard of living. Even under the current system many scientists are employed by the state, and therfore it is possible to have funding for science which is not profit-driven.

@rlumley - I hope you never are in a serious accident and find yourself a paraplegic. But if you do, I hope people tell you "take care of yourself." You appear to follow the exact opposite extreme of communism and appear not to believe in social responsibility at all.

Xapi +1

"Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
kill kill kill kill kill the poor
kill kill kill kill kill the poor toni-ii-ght"

Gotta love the Kennedys.

No, all we need to execute are you and Jamie. :-P

Read what I posted... "Any NORMAL person should be able to meet his own needs".

The handicapped are obviously excepted, the poor are capable of meeting their needs - they might have to work hard, but they are capable.

As to the undeveloped countries, throughout history all we have accomplished in interfering is to either conquer them (See also: Africa) and completely destroy their normal societal evolution, or tell them what to do, instead of letting them figure it out for themselves. A good friend of mine once said, in response to the idea that we should teach people to fish rather than give them a fish, that neither is a good thing, because what will happen when he moves away from the shore? He will have not learned to think, but only to do what he has been told.

@Jamie - that is where we differ. When it comes to luxuries, they should be a reward and a goal, not shared equally. I would not contribute to a society where everyone has everything equally. A society without reward based on contribution is of no interest to me.

@ Draugnar: " I hope you never are in a serious accident and find yourself a paraplegic."

Me too. (I think I addressed your point in a previous statement that I was typing as you posted that.)

"You appear to follow the exact opposite extreme of communism and appear not to believe in social responsibility at all."

What the hell is social responsibility? I have no responsibility to society. Why should I?

@rlumley:

"It is evil because it expects man to live for his brother. Man should live for himself, and no one else."

1. Why? No man is an island.contribute to society.
2. You still haven't explained what is "evil" about it.


"I'm glad society would be under no obligation to meet my needs. Because I am not so pathetically helpless as to need them to meet my needs. I depend on myself and no one else."

You depend on yourself and no one else? So when you drive to work, you drive there on a road which you laid yourself, driving a car which you designed and constructed yourself with your own hands using tools which you had also somehow managed to manufacture after you yourself mined and smelted the metal ores needed? No. Other people made your car and laid the road. Other people who are part of the same society you are also a part of.


"And I would find being a day labourer incredibly tedious and boring. And I would hate my work. But I would rather be bored to tears than contribute to a society that requires that I construct the noose with which they will hang me."

Then you are an idiot. And a spiteful idiot at that, if you would deliberately force yourself to lead a pitiful life just so that you could retain a sense of self-righteous smugness about it all.

@Jamie - that quote is not my own but from the wikipedia page. I suggest you go edit wikipedia if you don't think that is communism. But it is. You are wrong in thinking that communism allows any company to make money. Pure communism is communal (the origin of the name) and no person or organizaton owns anything. By equal, I meant equivalent. And in needs, nedd fulfillment has nothing to do with the exact same thing or even the same level. You are correct in that regards. but communism does not allow you to own more than anyone else (in fact it doesn't allow you to own anything).

By the way, you should be aware your favorite quote is actually Marxist in nature, not communist.

Ack. Typo. Please disregard "contribute to society" in (1.) above, which should read:

1. Why? No man is an island.

@ Draugnar:

"You are wrong in thinking that communism allows any company to make money."

Sorry, I'm confused. Where did I say that I thought this?

Wow. you're invoking ayn rand? oh god, pop philosophy for tweleve year olds.
next you'll be quoting john nash, arguing for r.d. lang, and praising game theory

@ Draugnar: Also, wikipedia is hardly the best of sources. I like wikipedia, but on an academic level its articles are often seriously lacking.

"What the hell is social responsibility? I have no responsibility to society. Why should I?"

no I dont wanna share! gimmie a cookie! I dont wanna go to school! waaaaaaaa