Communism - why does America hate it?

[Vile Atheist]

What if the waitress did a poor job, or 10% was all the 20 people could afford?

Charity should not be forced. The government is too corrupt and irresponsable. Look how they waste the money they get from us now. Why would anyone willingly give the irresponsable more money? There is no incentive for them not to pocket the money or care if the charity is abused. Besides, would you not want to have the choice as to where your money goes?

Any restaurant I go, the minimum I tip is 20%. Minimum. And if the waitress did a good job, maybe 25 or 30%. Why do I do that? Because I know they probably don't make a whole lot, their job can be demanding, and an easy, polite, generous customer makes their day go smoother. Be that as it may...

I would rather the restaurant pay them more (even if they have to raise prices). Because no matter if they get a generous tip or if they get good wages, they still make roughly the same amount of money. But they are guaranteed wages. They are not guaranteed tips.

A homeless person can rely on governmental programs to help them more than charities. Charities are subject to the generosity of the people donating. And they are also subject to a lot more corruption than you think. Charities aren't beacons of goodness. A lot of "charities" actually go on to fund terrorists and terrorist organizations.

The funding of governmental programs is not subject to any change beyond what the politicians feel is necessary and in an ideal situation, WE pressure the politicians to say how much is necessary. The funding is reliant on mandatory taxation. It gives a better guarantee that everyone is going to get all they need to survive from a government program than a charity choosing where it operates and how much it actually gives out to the people who need it.

Not only that, government programs are often more effective because they tend to target the causes of poverty and homelessness, rather than what most charities do and just give a homeless guy a bowl of soup. It doesn't solve the problem. It just offsets it.

 

[Minus Habens]

Any restaurant I go, the minimum I tip is 20%. Minimum. And if the waitress did a good job, maybe 25 or 30%. Why do I do that? Because I know they probably don't make a whole lot, their job can be demanding, and an easy, polite, generous customer makes their day go smoother. Be that as it may...

If the server does a good job, then I tip very well, as much as I can afford anyways. If my glass of tea never gets refilled, the server gets nothing. That helps ensure the best servers make it in that line of work; the poor server needs to do a better job or find another line of work.

I would rather the restaurant pay them more (even if they have to raise prices). Because no matter if they get a generous tip or if they get good wages, they still make roughly the same amount of money. But they are guaranteed wages. They are not guaranteed tips.

I believe the tips encourage better service. My mother worked as a waitress for many years. She once worked for a resteraunt that would put all the tips in a jar, then the wait staff would devide it evenly at the end of the night. It seems fair, but only if you assume everyone puts forth the same effort. In reality the better servers who got the higher tips were having to split it with the servers who didn't care, or were lazy, or rude. Just because someone is a waitress does not mean they are entitled to the maximum tip...

A homeless person can rely on governmental programs to help them more than charities. Charities are subject to the generosity of the people donating. And they are also subject to a lot more corruption than you think. Charities aren't beacons of goodness. A lot of "charities" actually go on to fund terrorists and terrorist organizations.

Perhaps, but I have not seen or heard much evidence of this. I would hope United Way is not funding Al-qaeda.

Now, I could find many examples of government waste and corruption in a matter of minutes...

Not only that, government programs are often more effective because they tend to target the causes of poverty and homelessness, rather than what most charities do and just give a homeless guy a bowl of soup. It doesn't solve the problem. It just offsets it.

I disagree. I think we have different ideas of what "effective" means. Sure, government programs would be effective to some degree, but more effective than charities? I don't believe so. And how much money is spent per degree of effectiveness? Charities do far more than give a guy a bowl of soup...

 

[Reverend Rick]

I seem to remember how effective the government was during hurricane Katrina. Those sandwiches and bottled water that charities where passing out in the beginning where greatly appreciated.

The private sector can always do a better job than the government.

 

[Kathryn]

Back to the argument that CEOs get paid too much, that their wealth should be shared with the valuable workers, that being self employed is a concept that's available and viable for most people, etc etc.

This is a very flawed mindset. First of all, CEOs get paid what the market will sustain. They will get fired, get a pay cut, or their company will go out of business if their salaries are not offset by profits - which are good for everyone at the company.

About being self employed - it's not as easy or as great as some here seem to think. I've been a worker, I've been a business owner and I've been an independent contractor. Personally, I prefer being a worker. It's less stressful, less complex, and more dependable when it comes to money in my pocket. I appreciate others who take on the risks and headaches of business ownership - I'll gladly work for them and give it my best in exchange for a fair paycheck and benefits package - and regular hours, little risk, a safe work environment, and opportunity for advancement and personal and professional betterment.

They get paid more than I do - but many of them also work 80 hour work weeks.

When I owned a company that had 25 employees, even though the money was good, the stress level was unbelieveable. Now I make 1/4 of what I made then - but my life is much better.

Most people do not have the skill set required to be a CEO, business owner, or even an independent contractor. And guess what - that's ok. Society needs more workers than it does CEOs anyway.

Think about the military - How many generals are there compared to privates? Is this unfair? Or is it just what is necessary to have a balanced and effective military?

And believe me - I prefer the company of the privates to the company of the generals, though both sets have a lot of irritating ways about them. I can assure you, though, that you do NOT want the privates in charge of national security or defense!

 

[Vile Atheist]

Perhaps, but I have not seen or heard much evidence of this. I would hope United Way is not funding Al-qaeda.

Now, I could find many examples of government waste and corruption in a matter of minutes...

I work at a Canada Post Post Office and under the PCMLTF Act, we're all given anti-money laundering and terrorist financing training by FINTRAC, which is basically the arm of CSIS that deals with financial crimes in Canada like the aforementioned (CSIS, of course, being Canada's intelligence agency). One of the biggest warnings they give us is to watch for people who are buying Money Orders and MoneyGrams to send to charities. Especially to ethnic charities (like, say, The Cuban-Canadian Association which I've just made up to make the point). They may not be engaged in acts of terrorism, but they may be funding the people who attacked the Cuban embassy in Ottawa. Religious charities are also mentioned and are an even bigger threat because they promote a unified ideology and belief system that is common to all members. They provide a greater basis for action versus Cubans who probably only have their Cuban heritage in common and that usually isn't enough to spark dangerous action.

A lot of these charities are benign but some are involved in money laundering and terrorist financing. And I highly doubt CSIS would spend money training employees of financial institutions (like Post Offices and Banks) if there wasn't a legitimate threat.



As an unrelated aside, I'm hoping to get into CSIS in 3-4 years !

 

[Vile Atheist]

I seem to remember how effective the government was during hurricane Katrina. Those sandwiches and bottled water that charities where passing out in the beginning where greatly appreciated.

The private sector can always do a better job than the government.

First you're comparing a massive natural disaster that caused billions of dollars in damage and wiped out a major US city to everyday poverty. Right off the bat, you're comparing apples and oranges. It's much easier to deal with everyday poverty than a natural disaster.

In a natural disaster - especially in a major US city, infrastructure is wiped out, rescue operations are difficult and dangerous, you need to deploy thousands of troops to deal with the crisis and that takes time and money and requires a lot of preparing to ensure a swift response.

[As an aside, this is why the US and Canada signed a treaty that allows the troops of either country to cross the border and aid in the event of a natural disaster. That's exactly why. If a natural disaster hits New York City, even the mighty US military will need all the help it can get. And that help will come from the Canadian Forces who won't have to waste time....and therefore lives....trying to acquire permission to cross the border to help out. The same works in reverse. If Montreal Canadiens fans stampeded Toronto because clearly the Toronto Maple Leafs are the superior hockey team, then we'd be glad the US Army would be there to help stop the onslaught of wine and stinky cheese.]

To deal with everyday poverty, you can set up job programs, after-school programs for low-income families, shelter houses, and much more. The numbers aren't easy to cope with, but it's easier to deal with than having millions of people being affected at once in a small area that require immediate assistance.

I'm not saying this excuses the American government's response to Katrina. But it certainly gives them some leeway because saving so many lives is a tough task to accomplish.

Nor am I deriding private charities and saying they are completely useless.

But one thing is for certain, you're dead wrong that the private sector is always better. If you think 40-50 million Americans without healthcare is excusable and then you complain about the government's response to Katrina, you certainly have an....inconsistent way of looking at things.

In some cases, the private sector is better. Not in every case. Not in health. And not in natural disaster response. And not in tackling poverty.

 

[Minus Habens]

As an unrelated aside, I'm hoping to get into CSIS in 3-4 years !

Good luck!

But one thing is for certain, you're dead wrong that the private sector is always better. If you think 40-50 million Americans without healthcare is excusable and then you complain about the government's response to Katrina, you certainly have an....inconsistent way of looking at things.

In some cases, the private sector is better. Not in every case. Not in health. And not in natural disaster response. And not in tackling poverty.

The 40+ mil uninsured number is not entirely accurrate. That number was from a census. It includes a number of illegal immigrants, people under the poverty level and eligable for medicaid, and those who choose not to have insurance. The real number is anywhere between 6 to 17 million from what I hear.

In short, it’s true that many of the 45.7 million "uninsured" could find coverage through existing government programs or pay for their own coverage if they chose. Some, perhaps 6 million, are illegal immigrants who would not receive coverage under any proposal now being considered.

factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/]The ‘Real’ Uninsured | FactCheck.org

And the "private" sector health insurance is under many government regulations that hinder competition like people in one state not being able to buy insurance from a company in another state. On another note, did you know that we used to be able to buy meds from Canada much cheaper than here in the states, but then the government stopped that... I wonder why they did that? There is an argument to be made that at least some of the high costs of meds, services, and insurance is due to government regulations already imposed on the industry... The point being that the health industry is not entirely freemarket...

 

[Troublemane]

We oppose communism because it does not work. Despite the corruption of our system, the system itself is able to work. Communism simply wont work, no matter who uses it.

 

[Troublemane]

Oh, yeah, another reason to hate it. Communism denies the individual private property rights. Under communism, nobody owns anything. Only the STATE owns anything...who is the state? An intellectual elite? A democratic mob? who?..usually its whomevers got the most guns.

Under capitalism, the individual is supposed to own their own property.

This right is easily taken away from people in countries who are used to totalitaritan regimes (ie, china, russia, etc) but its not so easy to take away this right from people who have it already.

Though the carbon cap and trade scam was a really good attempt. :angel2:

 

[yossarian22]

Oh, yeah, another reason to hate it. Communism denies the individual private property rights.

I would like to see a justification of property as a right.

 

[Kathryn]

Oh, yeah, another reason to hate it. Communism denies the individual private property rights. Under communism, nobody owns anything. Only the STATE owns anything...who is the state? An intellectual elite? A democratic mob? who?..usually its whomevers got the most guns.

Under capitalism, the individual is supposed to own their own property.

This right is easily taken away from people in countries who are used to totalitaritan regimes (ie, china, russia, etc) but its not so easy to take away this right from people who have it already.

Though the carbon cap and trade scam was a really good attempt. :angel2:

Cap and trade is not at all a dead issue - it is still up for the vote and the House and Senate are still working on it - it's just been overshadowed by the healthcare debate.

And speaking of communists - the cap and trade bill will be worthless if passed here, because China (and Russia and India) have all refused to sign the same sort of legislation. So while we will be cobbled industrially, they will not be.

 

[Kathryn]

I would like to see a justification of property as a right.

So you don't believe in private ownership of property?

 

[sandandfoam]

So you don't believe in private ownership of property?

I don't Kathryn.
In twenty-something years time I might own my house. But what does that mean?
I've watched relations fighting and falling out over inheritances. Seems mad to me. I have what I need and in reality I own almost nothing. It's about having access to the things you need. Ownership is the road to Gollum.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't Kathryn.
In twenty-something years time I might own my house. But what does that mean?
I've watched relations fighting and falling out over inheritances. Seems mad to me. I have what I need and in reality I own almost nothing. It's about having access to the things you need. Ownership is the road to Gollum.

So you really wouldn't mind if your wealth was redistributed? I mean, if someone who might want or need your car just helps themselves to it - or the government decides they need it more than you? What about your, oh, I don't know - refrigerator? What about the jeans you're going to put on today? What if someone walks by your table at lunch today and decides to reach down and take your plate of food? Would you really be OK with that?

Let's take you out of the equation. Let's say your child has a backpack that he really likes, and some teacher at school decides that another kid needs that backpack more and takes it from your kid. Is that OK?

My point is - where do you draw the line?

 

[sandandfoam]

So you really wouldn't mind if your wealth was redistributed? I mean, if someone who might want or need your car just helps themselves to it - or the government decides they need it more than you? What about your, oh, I don't know - refrigerator? What about the jeans you're going to put on today? What if someone walks by your table at lunch today and decides to reach down and take your plate of food? Would you really be OK with that?

Let's take you out of the equation. Let's say your child has a backpack that he really likes, and some teacher at school decides that another kid needs that backpack more and takes it from your kid. Is that OK?

My point is - where do you draw the line?

I think you're missing my point . I think (based on what I understand Marx to be saying) that private property rights are an impediment to the achievement of a just society.
The example you put forward has nothing to do with the point that I'm making
Here

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_e...each_according_to_his_need#cite_note-CGP_P1-0

there are enough cars and jeans for everyone. As a matter of fact we already have enough cars, jeans and schoolbags for everyone, the problem is that because of private property rights some have 50,000 school bags and some have none.

 

[Kathryn]

there are enough cars and jeans for everyone. As a matter of fact we already have enough cars, jeans and schoolbags for everyone, the problem is that because of private property rights some have 50,000 school bags and some have none.

How is this the fault of "private ownership rights?" You think that because my kid has two backpacks, he has taken one from some kid who DOESN'T have two backpacks?

I think that what I have done in buying him a couple of backpacks is that I have supported the local (and probably global) economy. When I buy something, that means I've supported someone's job, someone's livelihood.

If I MAKE backpacks, I want people to buy them. And I don't want to give them away, because then I can't afford to buy my OWN kids what they need.

 

[sandandfoam]

How is this the fault of "private ownership rights?" You think that because my kid has two backpacks, he has taken one from some kid who DOESN'T have two backpacks?

I think that what I have done in buying him a couple of backpacks is that I have supported the local (and probably global) economy. When I buy something, that means I've supported someone's job, someone's livelihood.

If I MAKE backpacks, I want people to buy them. And I don't want to give them away, because then I can't afford to buy my OWN kids what they need.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way around. Capitalism results in ever fewer people controlling more and more resources. It's an ever decreasing circle that will eventually result in your kid being the one in need of the back pack.
There are ample resources in the world to afford everyone a decent life. But these resources, because of their concentration in the hands of a few, mean that the many do not have access to the resources they need.
Huge transnational corporations hide behind the mythical hard working 'go-getter. I don't own my house - the bank does, the same bank we've bailed out with our taxes. Private property isn't a reality for most people - it's an illusion.
Our society privatizes gains made by corporations and socializes losses. This is the reality of private property as we know it. I'm arguing that our society should socialize all gains.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Capitalism has been very good to me. My employees seem to like it as well. Without me as their leader, they would all starve to death. My people get ahead in life and when folks leave my employ, they thank me and embark on their own entrepreneurial path.

I have helped many of my former employees start their own businesses. You see, my people get more than a pay check each week. They actually learn how to provide for themselves.

Some people realise that working for others should be a stepping stone to a better life.

If you only aspire to just survive and put forth the minimum effort in life, you reap what you sow and deserve nothing more.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Capitalism has been very good to me. My employees seem to like it as well. Without me as their leader, they would all starve to death. My people get ahead in life and when folks leave my employ, they thank me and embark on their own entrepreneurial path.

I have helped many of my former employees start their own businesses. You see, my people get more than a pay check each week. They actually learn how to provide for themselves.

Some people realise that working for others should be a stepping stone to a better life.

If you only aspire to just survive and put forth the minimum effort in life, you reap what you sow and deserve nothing more.

Of course capitalism is good for some things. But many of the fundamental aspects of our government and society are socialist and we seem to have no problem with it. Ideally, I think there should be a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism.

 

[yossarian22]

So you don't believe in private ownership of property?

Certainly not in the current sense of the term. Again, I have yet to see a justification of property as a right. Property is fundamentally different from other natural rights in that its fundamental nature is exclusive. If I own something it directly conflicts with your ability to own it.