Well, it's socialism, specifically. I'm happy to make a distinction, as you can have a socialist that isn't communist, just not the other way around.
Guess i have to be happy that you did not call it communism.
That doesn't make it any less questionable. But I don't consider things through ideological lenses, so I rather discuss ideas on their own merits, rather than on the basis of which particular ideology they come out of. At least insofar as the discussion is being that specific. We haven't been discussing the big picture of socialism, but rather the finer details, the feasibility of these socialist policies, specifically.
Indeed. They are two different things, the Robin Hood Effect and Robin Hood.
It has nothing to do with Robin Hood.
It's the way you put it before: "So the art of building a welfare state is to get the rich pay for the poor."
Is a mindset that leads, or can lead, to it.
What if no one's actually dying of starvation or with lack of healthcare in the first place? What if the state is going off of hypothetical scenarios and appeals to emotion to convince people that there is? What if that's all just appealing rhetoric for socialist sophists (or more likely actual communists) to win elections? Just like foreign aid is (that video has the longest appeal to emotion I've ever seen: 42 seconds of fallacious hot air, starting at the 04:08 mark).
It is just a subsidy like every other. The state as a whole decides that no one should die of starvation or because he can't afford healthcare - and spends tax money to make that sure.
It is not about whether the rich are good or bad or whether it is okay to hoard ridiculous amounts of money. That just doesn't matter. Welfare expenses in the end are just expenses and have to be paid somehow. You can't take the money from the poor, because they don't have it. So obviously you have to take it from the rich.
Does that sound far fetched to you?
Aren't you keeping in mind they pay loads of salaries? And don't you think that's rather unfair? It's one thing to want to help poor people, it's another thing to screw everyone else doing it.
The concept of the consumerism and entrepreneurship of the rich fixing the poorness problem is called Trickle-down economics and works as well as communism with real humans...
Let them go - and exspell them from the country so they aren't able to come back.
Let me put it this way: why don't we go to a pub and have a bear. I'll pay for yours and you pay for mine.
Beeing a citizen of a welfare state does not only mean that you get help if you need it - it also means, that you have to pay for others getting that help if you can afford it.
But I just happened to be born here. And I was never asked if I wanted to take part in any of it, and if I don't take part in it they'll come at me with guns.
People who decide to not beeing part of that state should not be part of that state.
They should have to get citizenship somewhere else or buy themselves an island where they could declare their own state and wich they would have to protect with their own military. Should not be a problem for the filthy rich wich also like to be hermits (hint: Most humans don't like to be alone)...
And what if I'm too poor to travel? What if I'm one of the people you're purportedly trying to help? All I want is to make my living and be left alone.
The rich are actually the ones that agree with that (while they don't realize what's happening). They often feel guilty for being filthy rich and vote in favor of being taken money away, instead of feeling happy to have moved the world forward and made the economy boom. Bill Gates is one of the best examples (which is why the economist Yaron Brook uses it) of someone who created tons of new jobs and wealth for tons of other people.
You're forgetting all the youngsters that just turned 18 and have no experience or skills, all the people who switch jobs to industries they never worked in, all the physically hindered or incapacitated people.
The market for low wage labour is driven by an oversupply of humans that are not skilled enough for the higher tier jobs. Some of them fled from the countries we destabilized or helped to destabilize.
That is why we have seen a race to the bottom in the low wage sector in the last decades.
Basically, the low wage labour market seems to be broken beyond repair (well, a pandemic could fix it, but we hopefully don't get one soon) in the USA and most (if not all) of the EU.
Indeed, but the difference is that only those who need it pay for it. It bears no cost to a nation, only to its consumers, and it has no bureaucrats and bureaucracies making it even more expensive (unless of course the state decides to make it so).
The current competitive economic also comes with high overhead costs. Advertising, multiplied company structures / production facilities, Salesmen...
Whatever economic system you chose, it will not be free.
It's interesting you mention that, because the most capitalist parts of the world are also the least polluted.
Humans are greedy and as long as they are, we will spend at least twice the amount of resources (and produce twice the amount of pollution) on everything than we would have to spend if greed would not be a thing. We would not even need the concepts of money or "buying something" without it.
Also money exists because it's inconvenient and hard to be trading 0.75 cow for 12.25 rabits.
It's also interesting that it's also in the most capitalist parts of the world where poor people are fat. And it turns out the states in those parts aren't providing any food at all to anyone and no one is concerned with it.
So it is not about overhead but about whether it works or not. If people starve or can't afford healthcare, that means to me, that the system is failing for them. For me, that is a bug that has to be fixed. Whether that also is a bug for you, depends on your ethics (for a social darwinist it would be a feature).
You call it greed, but perhaps you're not talking about greed. Perhaps you're making the same mistake Walter Williams made when he called it greed: he was right, but he wasn't talking about greed.
I call a failure to a system where one too many die waiting to be saved. People are dying for lack of healthcare under the very system that is purportedly built to prevent people from dying for lack of healthcare.
Edited by Skaruts, 17 October 2018 - 11:24 PM.