What's So Funny Bout Communism?

[frogus]

Indeed, excellent points Aegis.

So, as I sense that Scayde may be becoming annoyed with me criticizing her inhuman beliefs ( ) and thinking, "but how can he think that Communism is more human!?" I will change the subject of my posts briefly to why I do not believe in Communism (and however good a theory, the ideology has resulted in, what, 30,000,000 innocent deaths?). Later on in the day I will show you the (hopefully) logical reasoning behind my refusal to accept your view, Scayde.

In short, Communism doesn't work because, while Capitalism can be seen as a greasy poll, held upright by the millions clawing over one another to reach the top, Communism is more like a greasy poll upon which each man is assigned a space, and everyone is distributed evenly...however, as with any government, someone has to be at the bottom of the poll, holding the thing straight for everyone. When that person starts to weaken (Stalin, Lenin) everyone slides to the bottom.

The Dictatorship over a Communist State is, IMO, such a degree of human power as cannot be wielded without corruption. A human simply cannot act as a fulcrum for the lives of millions and still act in a responsible way, IMO. That is the root of it.

[Littiz]

CE: really I think I've been almost always in disagreement with you, but you're a girl
devoted to her beliefs, this is something I greatly appreciate

On the subject, I have to say though, that I greatly share even Scayde's point of view.
Indeed, I am part of the 'western' world, it comes natural.
But she's more right than me to hold such a position. She says she *has* worked hard.
I myself, ehm...
I'm sitting in the music room my parents built for me, and yes, I feel a little guilty, often.
Oh, remove the "little". I don't even work yet

Anyway, I oppose communism and similar views. Those are not the way to make things
equal, not even in theory. And BTW, "forced" total parity wouldn't be even right.
People *have* to be in competition to make the world work, we don't live in Arcadia!
The problem is that, in this struggle, we often lose the basic values.
I cannot understand how America can use a private system for hospitals, for instance.
Medical assistence should be granted to *everyone* who breaths insides its borders.
And outside. Taxes are paid even to preserve life.

About the poor countries... We all know, they basically suffer to preserve our better status.
There are not enough resources in the world!
And the richest nations would never give them the means to compete.
*Every* possible solution, in my opinion, needs to start from a reduction of the population.
This is the real key of the problem.
(I strongly oppose abortion, so I'm speaking about controls of another kind...)
Yet, poor nations at the moment can only keep the pace with a high rate of growing!
I think that, for the best outcome of everyone, all the nations should start working together
on plans of this kind. Give medicines and assistance to the 3rd world, but also work to
plan a future world with a smaller total population, otherwise, no system out there
(capitalistic, communistic, whatever) can prevent it to collapse, sooner or later.

[Lazarus]

I wonder where mediev is?

Oh. I had hoped to get away without having to post again. Well, for what it is worth, here is everything I have already said, rehashed and put in different terms.

Originally posted by C Elegans
. I don't know you @Scayde, so I can't tell whether I have understood your point or not. I have seen from your other posts that you are certainly not a heartless, non-caring person, quite the opposite. Previously on this board I have had similar discussions with Lazarus, and I believe that the main difference between him and me came down to believing or not believing in an inherent goodness in human nature, that will result in a fair and humane world if this goodness is only allowed to be free, without regulations.

@C Elegans: yes, we have had this discussion before, and you know my views, and have pretty neatly summed them up. I believe that the most important thing for every individual is that they be free – no, not free to rob and kill and slander (and we have had some discussion on the nature of “rights” as well) – but free, at the very least, to do with their economic livelihood as they see fit. I do believe that this requires that humans have some moral compass. There will always be dishonest people – we can’t change that in any political system – but why enslave everyone simply to make a show of equality of possessions?

Anyway, that was just to re-cap what you and I have already discussed.

Originally posted by C Elegans
. Please explain what you find so threatning about that comment. What do mean "share"? Re-organize the political and economical systems that maintain and worsen the unequal distribution of consumption of the resources. Moral obligation? I wish it was. How do we determine when we have shared enough? When the distribution gets closer and closer to an equally distributed average in terms of living standard. Equal opportunites.

I find your comment threatening because: it makes a moral obligation out of redistribution of wealth. You make me out to be an immoral person just because I do not believe that helping Ethiopian war refugees is a proper and moral act. Now, I am very secure in my way of thinking. I don’t care one iota what you may think of me – but all of you who are espousing socialism/communism/egalitarianism as a moral system exist here in this world with me. You live in my country and my city, and you vote. I have no desire to see this world become any more statist than it already is, because I have no desire to lose any more freedom than I already have lost. So when I see someone righteously proclaim that egalitarianism is the proper basis for a morality, I get very upset – because if they are convinced of it (and hear no proper counter-argument from people like me) they may just try to turn the US into one more socialist state. (Well, it’s pretty much that already – but that is another debate.)

Originally posted by C Elegans
. Do you seriously want me to reply to these questions, or did you just wish to make a point? Since I went on that holiday (I usually go abroad about 2 times a year) and since I haven't sold our lab equipment and given the money to the Red Cross, I bet you can guess what my answer is. If you seriously wish to know my thoughts I can post them, but if you merely want to make a point, I prefer discussing politics on a level of ideology rather than my personal life.

I apologize if I have offended you. I want you to be fully aware of exactly what kind of “morality” you are espousing. Random Thug actually hit the nail right on the head: my point is that if you truly believe egalitarianism to be moral, then the only way for you to live up to that morality is for you to give and give and give until you have nothing left. And then you have to work and work and work until you can’t work any more. And when you die, be sure to donate all your organs. I am perfectly serious about this. [/i]This[/i] is what your morality must dictate if you follow it through to its logical end. You cannot get around that fact that if you proclaim “sharing” of the world’s resources as moral then there is no limit as to when you have “shared” enough – because there can be no limit on being moral. Any system of morality which has this kind of suffering at its root cannot, IMO, be a very good one. Actually, one other funny point: if you take this all to a real extreme, do you realize that in this system of morality you would need poor and wretched people in order to be moral? Because if it is moral to give, but there is no one to give to, then you can’t be moral!

All I am saying (one more time) is that you can call me heartless and cruel for my beliefs. But none of you can answer this one basic – so very basic! – point: there exists no moral system that would allow for the redistribution of wealth and resources on this planet. Capitalism may not seem fair to you (though I would argue that it is), but what you propose as a counter is simply, obviously, and inherently expropriation; and that, IMO, is not moral.

[fable]

But none of you can answer this one basic – so very basic! – point: there exists no moral system that would allow for the redistribution of wealth and resources on this planet.

Most of your message was directed at @CE, so of course she is the appropriate person to comment on it. This sentence, however, is aimed squarely at all of us, so I hope you won't mind me throwing in my oar. More important, there are moral systems--read, world religions--that do insist upon the redistribution of wealth according to need. Whether you believe in any of them isn't the point raised in your comment.

In Judaism, for instance, the imperative need to spread one's wealth among the disadvantaged is mentioned repeatedly as an injunction in the Old Testament and the Mishnas. Selling for a profit in time of pestilence was considered religiously abhorrent. So was hoarding. Profiteers are described as those who raise prices without governmental authorization. Usury is prohbited. Giving to those in need is vital as part of being a good Jew; and the amount of wealth directed for redistribution is quite large by modern standards. Whether these injunctions are followed or not isn't the point; they have been around for thousands of years, and exist as part of the moral system.

Or consider Buddhism, one of whose main tenets is the Noble Eightfold Path which enjoins correct or proper view, thought, speech, conduct, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and meditation. The Theravadans (one of the major Buddhist sects, who do a great deal of didactic writing and instruction) have explained this as follows:

The ten courses of unwholesome kamma may be listed as follows, divided by way of their doors of expression:

1. Destroying life
2. Taking what is not given
3. Wrong conduct in regard to sense pleasures
4. False speech
5. Slanderous speech (Verbal action)
6. Harsh speech (vacikamma)
7. Idle chatter
8. Covetousness
9. Ill will
10. Wrong view

I could go on quoting, but one major point of the text, and indeed much of Buddhism, seems to be that taking what is not properly your share of life and goods from others is morally repugnant and causes untold suffering--both for others, and (in a different sense) for yourself.

I am not suggesting that either Judaism or Buddhism is right, or that my views coincide with either religion. (They don't.) Nor am I saying that these views are adhered to be their religion's followers. But there clearly are moral systems that do encourage the proper distribution and redistribution of wealth, either because it is right according to God's law (Judaism) or because it alleviates the suffering of the world (Buddhism).

Does this mean that these religions are inherently Communist? I don't think so. We shouldn't confuse Communist political means and economic goals. There are many ways of achieving the economic goals of Communism, which are identical with those of some major religions and other political systems, without invoking the horrors of Big Brotherism and the Soviet state.

[frogus]

So when I see someone righteously proclaim that egalitarianism is the proper basis for a morality, I get very upset – because if they are convinced of it (and hear no proper counter-argument from people like me) they may just try to turn the US into one more socialist state.

Please talk to us - we are not Communists (apart from Aegis ) and we are not trying to do anything with the US government. Nobody here has refused to hear counter-arguments from you - Hell, I even created a message thread because I am interested in hearing arguments and counter-arguments for the case.

You make me out to be an immoral person just because I do not believe that helping Ethiopian war refugees is a proper and moral act.

Please Lazarus, although I do not believe that I will be able to define morality among a group of free thinking atheists, and hence I will not be able to present a reasonable argument against this statement, think about how this sounds. It sounds monstrous.

my point is that if you truly believe egalitarianism to be moral, then the only way for you to live up to that morality is for you to give and give and give until you have nothing left. And then you have to work and work and work until you can’t work any more.

Firstly, giving away all your money will not make you equal, it will make you sub-equal - but that doesn't matter. Here is my point:
Believing in equality does not mean that one has to give away all one's money, as you said earlier -
In fact, believing in equality means that one must work towards equality. I'm sure you agree.
But here is the crucial point - If my belief was that Fort Knox should be destroyed (an arbitrary belief), my belief would not be best served by me running headlong into the barbed wire, or standing outside throwing stones at the walls. My belief would best be served by me gathering a force, promoting my cause, studying plans etc (all the while not actually making active movements to destroy the Fort)...Analogously (correct word?), CE's belief would not be best served by her sending her income to Ethiopia. The cause of equality is best served by promoting socialist politics, fraternal spirit and gaining positions of influence from whence to use the will of many, rather than just yourself.

You cannot get around that fact that if you proclaim “sharing” of the world’s resources as moral then there is no limit as to when you have “shared” enough – because there can be no limit on being moral. Any system of morality which has this kind of suffering at its root cannot, IMO, be a very good one

There is a limit to when we have shared enough - when everyone embraces equality, and is born with equal opportunities for happiness and success as everyone else. Suffering is neither here nor there.

if you take this all to a real extreme, do you realize that in this system of morality you would need poor and wretched people in order to be moral? Because if it is moral to give, but there is no one to give to, then you can’t be moral!

Here you have made a bad logical mistake - you are mistaking sharing for *the whole of morality*, when actually it is just a part of morality. Your sentence: "if it is moral to give, but there is no one to give to, then you can’t be moral!" Is similar to "If a penguin is a bird, and the penguins die out, there will be no more birds!"

Sorry for the long post - here is a summary - Equality will only be acheived with powerful politics, not with meaningless individual donations, and equality is moral, but it is not morality. Everyone need not have exactly the same ammount of money, but everyone must be born with equal opportunities for success and happiness (This way the cream really will rise to the top).

[fable]

Excellent post, @Frogus. I still think it is only a matter of time before national governments become aware that the world's poor also forms the largest untapped consumer group. Where morality fails, capitalism will ultimately cause the more far-sighted to educate and empower the impoverished--but it may take a very long time. And with the use of nuclear weapons as pawns of threat (Pakistan, India, North Korea) and "deterrent' (the US), I'm not sure we have that time.

[RandomThug]

@Fable

And there lies our only hope, that the greed of the world turns to aid the poor for thier own desires. Man I love humans.. which one of these symers said " Kill the Humans " cause Im thinking about it hehe..

But your definitly right fable.

[Lazarus]

Mis-communication

@fable: quick lunchtime response ...

I may have not properly worded the sentence you quote. Perhaps I should clarify the difference between a "moral system" and a "system of morality." The former is what we are discussing here. I have said that I believe any system which condones the redistrubution of wealth cannot be a moral system -- that is to say that it is inherently immoral because it requires the expropriation of wealth. You have brought up the subject of systems of morality. I view the ones you have listed as arbitrary and of no worth. I would never dream of believing something is moral simply because God (or Buddha, or whatever) says it is.

Do you understand my distinction?

[Scayde]

Oh my...you guys have been busy while I was sleeping

I have so many directs I need to answer, but I have to get my patients lined up....I will post as soon as I cazn.in the mean time.....

Place Holder


BTW: Fabulous post Lazarus.....well said

[Boy]

Well, I know I'm going to take a lot of flaming for this, but I actually am a 'socialist' of sorts, or at least I despise capitalism. I think that while in principle Communism may be more corrupted than capitalism, I do believe that in theory, Capitalism is a horrible greedy system that is truly awful. But people will be people, and I think that the reason Capitalism is as popular as it is is because it can be the least corrupted of the two main forms of economy. (I think)

[CM]

I will get beat up for this but hell i always have radical views. Western Europe is getting closer and closer to the form of Communism envisaged by Marx and Engels ie where the workers form the most powerful political force and also where there is a great deal of equality among the people in almost all aspects.

All Europeans know their labour rights and use it in many cases to deterimental affects as seen in the strikes in Italy and France. Can't think...place holder...took me 10 min to write that much....

Edit: Now that i have started my paper my brain is working. So here goes....

One portion of the equality covered by Marx and Engels was not equality of political or social life. Rather economic life. The workers wouldnt be dirt poor and the industrialists filthy rich. This can easily been seen starky in Europe. Wages are sky high to the extent that the poorest European owns a house/apartment a car and can feed his family.

However this is where capitalism comes into play. Though the middle class makes the extremely vast majority in the case of europe, there is a differentiation in the products and their quality. Some people drive BMW's while others Skodas and Fiats. That is the capitalist influence, with product differentiation and luxury items. But the overall theme is that people have the basic right to a house, a car, a tv etc.

Many of these items are actually luxuries in many parts of the world. But in Europe everybody has the right to these luxuries and it is obvious in the pay scale. This however is only applicable in the case of industrial goods or services. The agriculture sector with teh CAP and all is a completely different thing.

To quote my proffessor: "Those farmers in mercedes are stealing our money".

[Boy]

That's why Western Europe is in such good shape. They have the practice down pat, but it isn't 'technically communism' so it cannot be abused like it can be.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by CM
All Europeans know their labour rights and use it in many cases to deterimental affects as seen in the strikes in Italy and France. Can't think...place holder...took me 10 min to write that much....

And UK, currently in the grip of a Fireman's strike, why they won't just pay them is anyones guess. It is a very large talking point that is unfortunately becoming ground down by the government to the point where the public don't care any more

[C Elegans]

Re: I wonder where mediev is?

It seems Frogus has already written most of what I wanted to say, and better too, but since Lazarus post was mainly addressed to me, I wish to respond anyway.

First @Lazarus, I am glad I seem to have understood your viewpoint correctly, and I wish you to understand mine too, although we of course do not agree in this area.

Originally posted by Lazarus
I have no desire to lose any more freedom than I already have lost.

Ok, then I understand why you find my views dangerous.

You and I have different definitions of freedom. You seem to focus on positive freedom, the freedom to act and choose. However, like Tom once posted, a lonely man at an isolated island has 100% positive freedom, but very little negative freedom, ie he doesn't have access to many choices. Actually, he can't do very much at all. IMO, freedom must consist of positive as well as negative freedom. I don't view Tom's man on the island as a free man.

if you truly believe egalitarianism to be moral, then the only way for you to live up to that morality is for you to give and give and give until you have nothing left. And then you have to work and work and work until you can’t work any more. And when you die, be sure to donate all your organs. I am perfectly serious about this. This is what your morality must dictate if you follow it through to its logical end.

The conclusion that the consequence of my moral is that I must give away all I have and work every waking hour until I die is only valid if I believe that giving away all my possessions is the only, or the most efficient method to achive my goals of equal distribution and equal opportunities. But if you read my long post above to Scayde, you can see that I cleary state I do not believe that simply giving away wealth is an efficient method to achieve what I want. In order to achieve my goal of equal distribution of wealth, equal possibilities in terms of positive as well as negative freedom, I think other methods are far more efficient, and those are the methods I have choosen to use. Donations and charity are fine, I use that method too, but I firmly believe the more long term strategies I have choosen to achive my goals are far more efficient than giving away all of my income would be.

And I have a donor card donating my organs, too

You cannot get around that fact that if you proclaim “sharing” of the world’s resources as moral then there is no limit as to when you have “shared” enough – because there can be no limit on being moral.

It is also a misunderstanding that there would be no limit for sharing. On the contrary, I stated in my previous post that sharing will cease as everybody come closer and closer to a mean of wealth, and there were equal opportunities in terms of negative and positive freedom.

Actually, one other funny point: if you take this all to a real extreme, do you realize that in this system of morality you would need poor and wretched people in order to be moral? Because if it is moral to give, but there is no one to give to, then you can’t be moral!

No, this is also a misunderstanding. Frogus has already answered to this, and I will add: I don't think anyone, at least not me, has defined moral behavior exclusively as helping poor people. Thus your conclusion that moral dissappears if poverty disappears, is incorrect. Helping poor and ill people may be viewed as one type of behaviour that is moral according to a certain moral system (mine, for example) but it is far from being the only part in that moral system.

But none of you can answer this one basic – so very basic! – point: there exists no moral system that would allow for the redistribution of wealth and resources on this planet.

Oh, there are many such moral systems around. Or do you mean you personally find them to be "immoral" moral systems since you define redistribution of wealth as immoral to begin with?

I am not sure what you mean, but if you want information regarding moral systems based on equality, check out the Secular Humanism link I posted above, they have several documents and further links. Of course there are also many religious moral systems that allows for this, but like you I am a non religious person so I will not refer to moral based on transcendent concepts.

[fable]

Re: Mis-communication

Originally posted by Lazarus
@fable: quick lunchtime response ...

I may have not properly worded the sentence you quote. Perhaps I should clarify the difference between a "moral system" and a "system of morality." The former is what we are discussing here. I have said that I believe any system which condones the redistrubution of wealth cannot be a moral system -- that is to say that it is inherently immoral because it requires the expropriation of wealth. You have brought up the subject of systems of morality. I view the ones you have listed as arbitrary and of no worth. I would never dream of believing something is moral simply because God (or Buddha, or whatever) says it is.

Do you understand my distinction?

To be honest, @Lazarus, no; I'm sorry. Perhaps you could give a couple of examples of what you mean by "a moral system," and what you mean by "a system of morality."

I would never dream of believing something is moral simply because God (or Buddha, or whatever) says it is.

That's the way many people speak about religions, but that's not the way they actually are. You're not supposed to believe that covetousness is bad because the Buddha said so, but because if you meditate upon the nature of the universe, you will arrive at these conclusions yourself; or barring that, you trust in a moral exemplar (in this case, Buddha) and his intuited realizations.

However, we are moving a bit far afield, here.

[Lazarus]

Oi - too many people to answer

Originally posted by frogus
Please talk to us …

Ummm … I am talking to you.

Originally posted by frogus
Please Lazarus, although I do not believe that I will be able to define morality among a group of free thinking atheists, and hence I will not be able to present a reasonable argument against this statement, think about how this sounds. It sounds monstrous.

The statement you refer to is that I do not believe aiding Ethiopian war refugees is a moral act. I stand by that. Call it monstrous if you will. I find egalitarianism monstrous. To further expand, however: I view the aiding of those less fortunate as … very nice. Go ahead and do it if you like. I think it is just dandy. I will not, however, claim that to be moral one must help those less fortunate. But that is precisely what those of you who propound socialism/communism/egalitarianism give as a reason for taking money from my pocket at the point of a gun: because it is the “right” thing to do. It is for some “greater good.” It is “morally justified.” I disagree for all of the reasons I have stated.

Originally posted by frogus
… The cause of equality is best served by promoting socialist politics, fraternal spirit and gaining positions of influence from whence to use the will of many, rather than just yourself.

If you say so. It sounds a little like a cop-out to me. You proclaim equality as the ideal, but sit back in your comfy chair posting to GameBanshee while Ethiopia starves. Do you feel guilty? Or do you think that voting Green is enough to get you out of egalitarianism purgatory? I don’t mean to sound sarcastic (well maybe a bit), but I really don’t understand how you justify this kind of dichotomy.

Originally posted by frogus
There is a limit to when we have shared enough - when everyone embraces equality, and is born with equal opportunities for happiness and success as everyone else. Suffering is neither here nor there.

Ah. Lovely. If only to reach this beautiful utopia you didn’t have to eat the rich. You have pointedly not responded to my assertion that any method of wealth/resources distribution involves forcibly robbing and/or enslaving a certain segment of the human race. If you openly admit that this is so, and that you desire it – fine. We will agree to disagree. Until you have answered the point, you have ignored the one main point I am trying to get across here.

Originally posted by frogus
Here you have made a bad logical mistake - you are mistaking sharing for *the whole of morality*, when actually it is just a part of morality. Your sentence: "if it is moral to give, but there is no one to give to, then you can’t be moral!" Is similar to "If a penguin is a bird, and the penguins die out, there will be no more birds!"

I tend to disagree. I believe that you can’t divide up morality, or say that an act is sorta moral, or pretty much moral. Maybe. But I don’t know that that is really pertinent. You state above that you believe your morality is best served through efforts other than simply giving. In that case, the quote (of mine) you refer to here is not pertinent – it discusses the giving of wealth.

Originally posted by frogus
Sorry for the long post - here is a summary - Equality will only be acheived with powerful politics, not with meaningless individual donations, and equality is moral, but it is not morality. Everyone need not have exactly the same ammount of money, but everyone must be born with equal opportunities for success and happiness (This way the cream really will rise to the top).

“Powerful politics.” Yes, I would agree with that. The politics of mass enslavement. How many nations does this philosophy have to ruin before you see the pattern?

And just how on God’s green earth do you define “equal opportunities for success and happiness” - !? What does that mean? That everyone is born in the same place, at the same time, from the same parents, who have the same amount of money in the bank, and live the same distance away from the nearest hospital ………. ? There can never, ever, ever be true equality, frogus. So how much are you willing to rob before you decide it is “enough?”

Enough! To quickly finish up some loose threads …

@CE: I think we understand one another. You and I do view freedom differently. I disagree about the man on the island. He is free. Born into such a situation, he must simply accept the reality of the situation. To say that he is somehow “limited” is to deny that reality exists and that he has to deal with it.

@fable: hmmm. How do I explain … I meant a “moral system” as: a system that is moral. Admittedly, this judgment of what is moral is by my standards. This is what we are all arguing about here – our different standards of morality. I do not view egalitarianism as a moral system, because I view it instead as an immoral system. Does that clarify my use of the term? I think we may just be reading the term in two different ways. I don’t mean a “moral system” as: a system that has a moral component to it. This is more what I mean when I speak of “systems of morality.” And I don’t think that religions are the only kind (I myself subscribe to a certain system of morality, which, of course, is not a religion). I understand your point about religions not dictating morality. I don’t want to discuss religion much because it is far too personal for too many people, but I will say that the way you describe people coming to accept religion is very reasonable, and I wish all religious persons followed that ideal. I don’t know that they do.

(It seems CE just picked up on the exact same sentence as you, and, I think, mis-interpreted it in the same manner. I apologize if I did not make myself clear.)

[Scayde]

Originally posted by C Elegans
Ooo, so many posts, I will try to reply but I'm sorry I can't keep up with your tempo!

I don't know you @Scayde,

Perhaps that will change someday

As is obvious, ( ¡K) I do not share the belief that "to each his own" and "the stong shall prevail over the weak"

These are two separate and unrelated philosophies which socialist propagandists continue to fuse together in order to stir the emotions of the populace against those who seek only to support themselves with out interference from the state.
It does not necessarily hold that an independent businessman achieves his success through the exploitation of the working class¡¨ nor are most self sufficient people I know interested in prevailing over the weak any more than you are. I think it is hurtful everytime this is insinuated.
The desire to pursue your own interests in peace without harassment does not equal a human rights abuse of the needy. I find little credence in an argument that depends on these kinds of theatrics to bolster an otherwise shaky argument.

With increasing exploitation of resources, increasing pollution, an increasing part of the population that are not productive, the need for distribution as urgent as ever. Not only globally, on a local level too.

But the issue being discussed here is communism, and communism is a fiscal model. These issues fall more into the realm of ecology. I would think everyone here is aware that in the modern world, the communistic governments have been sorely remiss in addressing ecological issues. In fact, I think it is the US which probably has some of the best records in these departments.

In modern society, children do not contribute until they are at least in the middle or late teens, often later due to long education. Elderly people are more numerous than ever and we all live longer. Disabilities and diseases that killed people in the former days are now possible to survive. So apart from the global poverty problems, there are also local issues. And to me, this is not a question of viewing people as strong or weak, it is a question of my lack of acceptance for a world where people who were not lucky enough to be born rich and healthy, are less worth and have less rights than the lucky population. To me, a world with this ideology would be grossly inhumane and immoral.

It seems to me that you and I agree on this point. I feel that everyone, regardless of the circumstances, have worth as human beings. The fact that they are deprived of rights in certain parts of the world has much more to do with the local governments they have in place, than the success or failure of a self sufficient worker who may, or may not earn more money than they do. To me the idea that a person be forced, coerced, or ridiculed into giving up what he has earned by anyone else is grossly inhumane and immoral.

it doesn't matter how smart or creative you are, disease and famine are not impressed and will not reward you.

No, it is up to you to take the responsibility for your life, and make the most you can out of it. We will not all end up at the same point, but we are each intitled to the fruits of our own labor. To take this from anyone and redistribute it to another is thievery, and slavery, both of which are appallingly immoral.

If you judge a person's worth to be equal to his ability to contribute, then in your eyes a chronically ill child, an disabled person or a person born in poverty are not worth as much as you or I?

It seems to me, you confuse the issue of human dignity and personal worth, with the ability to be self reliant, and a contributing member of society. One does not need to be an effective person to have worth, but they do need to be an effective person in order to contribute to society. If a person is not able, for whatever reason to contribute to society, then he is a drain on the productive members. In my ideal, these people are cared for out of love and compassion. Charity given out of free will to a fellow human being in need.
In the system you propose, there is no free will, only slavery, servitude, and plunder. So it would seem, that in your eyes, the needy are worth more, and entitled to more consideration, that the self reliant members of the group. Otherwise, what would give them the right to take that which they have not earned?

I don't understand why you call it thievery to share what you earn if you have more than you need? Is not thievery to eat all the food on the table so that some people get no food at all? Do you have the right to eat more because you were strong enough to push your neighbor aside?

The second part of this question is sensational and inflammatory, but let me address it separately from the first part. If I choose to give a portion of what I have away, it is 'sharing' if it is taken from me against my will, it is 'thievery'.
Now, you imply that because I feel I am entitled to make the decisions on how my own money is spent, that I am a glutton. I would refer you back to your original statement. You don¡¦t know me. No, it is not right to push my neighbor aside. That is his table. He has the right to enjoy his meal, just as I do. My neighbor does not have the right to push me aside, because he likes my dinner better than his either. I must say, I find it offensive that my desire to keep what I have earned should be misconstrued into taking from my neighbor. That is principally what I have been preaching against this whole discussion, and you would rephrase my statements as thus?

I don't believe anyone is born to have more or less rights that another person.

Then we agree on this much, perhaps it is in our definitions of rights that we differ. I do not feel one person has the right to impose their will or needs on another. I do not feel one person has the right to another persons mind, body or property. It seems you do. I think this is henous.

I must get some work done..I will post more later.....

[Dottie]

Regarding redistrubution of wealth.

Not communism nor capitalism is a system for redistrubution of wealth. They are systems for distribution of wealth. You can distribute wealth according to many factors: intellegence, ambitions, need, birth place, parentage and so on. In capitalism its a combination of a number of factors, ambition and intellegence being some of them, But where you are born and how rich your parents were is among the more important. I can not se why this system is the only one that is not imoral. Or why any other system would be equal to thievery or slavery.

[CM]

Actually both systems infer from their theories that the ultimate wealth anybody wants in both systems is Money, cash, the monetary value that allots purchasing power.

All businessmen want money, why else would they enter the market and sell their products. That is both the basis in capitalism and communism.

Capitalism of course rewards intelligence, innovation, efficiency and all the like, but in monetary terms. Communism on the other hand doesnt allot any rewards for such things, because if it did it would be unequal treatment. That of brings out the question are humans truly equal, if they are they should all be treated the same. I hope that last sentence makes sense.

Edit: I havent read the whole thread, but the issue of slavery or theivery in either system is in regard to monetary value. It all boils down to money...

[fable]

It seems to me that you and I agree on this point. I feel that everyone, regardless of the circumstances, have worth as human beings. The fact that they are deprived of rights in certain parts of the world has much more to do with the local governments they have in place, than the success or failure of a self sufficient worker who may, or may not earn more money than they do. To me the idea that a person be forced, coerced, or ridiculed into giving up what he has earned by anyone else is grossly inhumane and immoral.

@Scayde, I think many people feel that taxes are precisely that: a form of coersion used by governments to acquire revenues for distrubution to a variety of perceived needs. These could include (in the US) Medicaire, legal services, grants to adoption agencies, etc. Are you then talking about a qualitative difference? It seems to me that you're only arguing about a quantitive one. You would object to more money than--how much?--being taken away from you and used for social services; and I don't know how you would feel about the redirection of governmental funding priorities away from defense and towards education and other wealth redistribution models throughout the world.