Communism in the USA

Frank Apisa wrote:

Scrat wrote:
cavfancier wrote:
I think the only real difference between Communism and Capitalism is the perception of monetary need, and who should be responsible for it.

I think the difference is better stated as a question of who is best able to understand what my needs are, responsible for seeing that those needs are met, and is most likely to do so well and with the minimum negative impact on the needs of others; I or the State.

For me that's a no-brainer.

And I have no doubt of that, Scrat.

But can you at least consider the possibility that there are people, decent people -- not all lazy bums, for whom the answer to that question is a no-brainer in the opposite direction of the one I'm sure you are choosing?

Do I think that there are people who believe that the state knows better than they what they each need?

No. Certainly not any significant number of people, no.

Do I think there are people who think the state should be responsible for seeing that their needs are met?

Sure, though I suspect that for many of them they believe this because it is all they have known, and they do not realize the greater opportunities open to them if they take up that yoke themselves.

Do I think there are people who think the state is likely to do a better job of providing for their needs than they could do themselves?

Sure, with the same caveats as above.

Do I think there are people who think that when the state provides for their needs those needs are met with the minimum negative impact on the needs of others?

No, because I don't think the impact of having their needs provided for by others factors into their thinking. I believe that most who want the state to provide for them see the largess of government as money from a magic treasure trove; money the government simply prints for them. (Surveys have actually shown that a shocking percentage of the American populace thinks that the federal government has its own money. They actually don't understand that the welfare payment to one person came from the earnings of other people.)

===

Anyhow, back to our discussion (which I am enjoying, thank you!)...

My questions back to you:

Do you think that the state knows better than you what you need?

Do you think the state should be responsible for seeing that your needs are met?

Do you think the state can better provide for your needs than can you?

Do you think the negative impact on the ability of others to have their needs met is likely greater when you work to meet your own needs or when the government provides for your needs?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Anyhow, back to our discussion (which I am enjoying, thank you!)...

My questions back to you:

Do you think that the state knows better than you what you need?

No!

Quote:

Do you think the state should be responsible for seeing that your needs are met?

No. (With certain reservations!)

Quote:

Do you think the state can better provide for your needs than can you?

At times, YES!

Quote:

Do you think the negative impact on the ability of others to have their needs met is likely greater when you work to meet your own needs or when the government provides for your needs?

Not sure I understand that question!

COMMENT: No matter what I think about me, my needs, or the way I think those needs are best met -- I most definitely know there are people who need help in competing reasonably in this society -- and I think the government is the best institution for helping set the "safety nets" I think should be in place.

I consider "the government" to be US -- We, the People!

I think, We, collectively, have a responsibility that I see best met, not by hoping that it can be met through personal contributions to charities, but by the facilities of the institution we call government.

I understand and acknowledge that decent, well-intention, highly intelligent, reasonable, caring people can disagree strongly with me on that -- but I do feel that way.

I think communism sucked -- and I doubt that it would have sucked any less if it had been adopted by stronger societies.

I think capitalism as practiced in the United States sucks less -- and is, in any case, the best hope for a reasonable society at this time. But I see the need for major adjustments -- no matter that such an opinion may seem incongruent with basic tenets of capitalism.

ASIDE: I'm enjoying this too, Scrat. Despite some of the comments I may have made earlier in ourassociationI consider you an outstanding advocate for the issues you choose to advocate

0 Replies

What fbaezer said. Concise little summary.

On a sideline ....

McGentrix wrote:

The problem with communism is people. If you could take away the people, and use ants, communism works pretty well.

You know the joke about who invented communism - scientists or intellectuals?

Intellectuals, cause the scientists had already tried it out on ants.

0 Replies

Scrat, you're talking in absolutes, which doesnt make much sense to me on any practical level. I mean, e.g.:

Do you think that the state knows better than you what you need?

When it comes to water management and figuring out the best way to keep land use from infringing on the natural safety of our land? (Remember, I'm from Holland - we dont have the most detailed spatial planning government policy of the world for nothing)

Yes.

When it comes to choosing which planes and helicopters to buy for our army?

Yes.

When it comes to defining what environmental regulatory procedures are necessary to prevent our factories from over-polluting our air?

Yes.

Et cetera.

Do you think the state should be responsible for seeing that your needs are met?

Well, I hold the state responsible for providing a quality educational system, for making sure there's enough highways and railroad tracks to get me where I'm going, for making sure asylum-seekers have some place better to stay than in a cardboard box in my alley.

I am also glad that the state provides an emergency net to fall back on when fate strikes any of us, and we should find ourselves without job, house, money and/or friends or family to lend us any - just enough to help us get back on our feet; I'm willing to pay taxes to help the state offer that kind of guarantee. Because there are people who - through tragedy or their own stupidity - end up down and out and who don't have a rich uncle to call. It makes me feel safe about myself and about all those people whom I dont know, but who cant ever be bad enough to deserve to live in the street, staying the night outside in the cold because the Salvation Army only allows you in two nights a week ...

Do you think the state can better provide for your needs than can you?

For the needs describe above? Yes.

Well, et cetera. Hardly anyone wants the state to not do anything for you - hardly everyone wants the state to do everything for you. Thats why social-democracy, christian-democracy etc are such popular options - and communism and libertarianism are not.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I consider "the government" to be US -- We, the People!

I think, We, collectively, have a responsibility that I see best met, not by hoping that it can be met through personal contributions to charities, but by the facilities of the institution we call government.

I think communism sucked -- and I doubt that it would have sucked any less if it had been adopted by stronger societies.

I think capitalism as practiced in the United States sucks less -- But I see the need for major adjustments

AMEN - on all of those ;-)

0 Replies

Frank - Good, reasonable comments. Yes, I too recognize that you can disagree with me on this or that point without being defective. :wink:

I am inclined to disagree with your opinion that the federal government is the best mechanism for helping those in need in this country. A careful consideration of the data suggests that they have been quite successful in growing the ranks of the needy, but I'm pretty sure that most people in this country don't see that as a positive development.

The two issues I have with federal safety net programs are:

1) No Constitutional basis for same.

The Constitution, Original Intent and Social Programs

2) The inability or unwillingness of the government to demand standards of behavior from recipients of government charity.

Private charities almost always insist that people be making efforts to improve their own lot in order to receive assistance. This (I think) tends to move people out of the behaviors which often led them to need assistance in the first place. When the government simply pays anyone who falls into the "poverty" bucket, they inevitably enable people to continue making the same bad choices that put them in need in the first place.

0 Replies

nimh - I asked about your individual needs, as we were discussing social safety net programs. Did you think I was arguing that government had no role in society? (I was not.) I was suggesting that those roles for which it is well-suited are limited.

0 Replies

The conservatives, particularly neo-cons, feign the mantra of less government control -- they actually just attempt relocate the control (to the states and to local for instance which are also governments).
Does anyone thinks a corporation can do better than what one can do themselves? I find libertarianism doesn't always make a good bedfellow for Republicanism. There's also the question of more control on morality -- our private and personal lives. Obviously communist countries have a lousy record with that one.

Answer the question whether state and local governments are less corrupt and more efficient than the federal government.

0 Replies

Scrat is addressing the problem of the efficiency of social workers who are basically responsible for policing those on welfare. Maybe a new job for Scrat?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I am inclined to disagree with your opinion that the federal government is the best mechanism for helping those in need in this country. A careful consideration of the data suggests that they have been quite successful in growing the ranks of the needy, but I'm pretty sure that most people in this country don't see that as a positive development.

And I am incline to agree with your comment that that the federal government has been quite successful in growing the ranks of the needy...but I suspect we would depart radically on what those words indicate.

The American government has been dominated for the last 30 years by conservative thought -- and I suggest that the growing disparity between the "haves" (the people who can realistically be expected to fend easily on thier own) and the "have nots" (the folks who honestly need a helping hand fending) is a result of that domination.

Said another way: The problem is not so much that government has stressed looking out for the welfare of the people who need help so much, they inadvertantly have been increasing the ranks of people looking to sponge off society...

...as it is that government has been coming down more and more in favor of the elite -- who are taking a bigger and bigger piece of the pie for themselves -- and thus creating a larger pool of people who end up in the ranks of people who need some help.

Scrat, I cannot make a compelling case (nor have I heard a compelling case) for what I am supposing here. Conversely, I have not heard a compelling case in the other direction.

I just think both sides should consider the possibility that the problem is more complex than some of the proponents of either side would paint it.

As for your concerns with

Quote:

1) No Constitutional basis for same.

That has been discussed and debated to death in these forums -- and I truly have no desire to revisit that contention.

Obviously the sturcture of government does not agree with you on that -- and that is good enough for me. I understand your position on that issue -- but I disagree -- and apparently so does the Supreme Court of the United States, which has has ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the several safety net programs.

As for your concern with

Quote:

2) The inability or unwillingness of the government to demand standards of behavior from recipients of government charity.

I disagree. Government does make efforts in this direction -- and the evidence is that it seems to be working -- at least in part.

As for your comment:

Quote:

Private charities almost always insist that people be making efforts to improve their own lot in order to receive assistance. This (I think) tends to move people out of the behaviors which often led them to need assistance in the first place. When the government simply pays anyone who falls into the "poverty" bucket, they inevitably enable people to continue making the same bad choices that put them in need in the first place.

I disagree strongly with everything in that final sentence -- including the words "the" and "in." :wink: :wink:

But seriously:

...the government doesn't "simply pay anyone who falls into the 'poverty' bucket...and many, probably most, of the people in that bucket are not there because they made "bad choices" -- but because in many ways, the deck is stacked against them.

We'll discuss that, I'm sure. But I'll rest for a bit now and let you respond.

0 Replies

I think state governments tend to be more responsive to the needs and the regional differences of their people than the Federal gvt tends to be.

My home of Florida places a high priority on the concerns of beach erosion, which a state like Kansas doesn't give two figs about.

Each regional area has its own concerns and trying to handle those differences is better handled by the state.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

The conservatives, particularly neo-cons, feign the mantra of less government control -- they actually just attempt relocate the control (to the states and to local for instance which are also governments).

This may seem inconsistent to you, but it is absolutely consistent with the US Constitution, which clearly states that those powers not enumerated for the federal government, belong to the states and to the people.

I am not necessarily against government in general playing some role in attempting to ensure the social welfare, but I am absolutely convinced that the US Constitution gives the federal government no role whatsoever in this endeavor.
(See topic: The Constitution, Original Intent and Social Programs)

So yes, when I speak of limited government I am for the most part referring to the federal government.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Scrat is addressing the problem of the efficiency of social workers who are basically responsible for policing those on welfare.

No, I am addressing nothing of the sort. I am addressing the fundamental unwillingness of most government social welfare programs to place meaningful constraints on recipients, not the failure of workers to implement constraints.

Thing is, I'm not sure the government should be attempting to police private behavior, but that is just another argument against them doling out charity, isn't it?

A private charity can refuse to help me if they know I am a drunk and am just going to go out and drink with the money they give me. The federal government simply hands over a check, no questions asked.

0 Replies

The federal government just hands over checks with no questions asked? Not.

0 Replies

(Better check out the penalties for falsifying a welfare claim, number one).

This hasn't addressed the major problem with communism -- it only works in small models just as true democracy only works in small models.

Communism in its larger concept has been a travesty. Now what does one think of Democracy in a larger model?

We live in a Capitalist Republic, not really a Social Democracy.

Those who have the gold make the rules.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Those who have the gold make the rules.

And you think the idiot who can't balance his checkbook and thinks that bikini mud wrestling represents the peak of 'culture' in this country should be making the rules?

No thanks, I'll stick to voting successful and competent people in office.

0 Replies

What successful and competant people and who owns them?

0 Replies

And aren't you describing a majority of the voters -- the rabble?

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

The federal government just hands over checks with no questions asked? Not.

You read my example. Are you claiming that the government would not hand over a check to someone who intended to spend it on booze?

Before welfare reform, the only criteria for federal assistance was demonstrable need. No one asked how you came to be in need or whether you were planning to make changes and attempt to move out of a condition of dependence.

You know this, it is just inconvenient to your point of view, so you prefer to ignore it.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

Those who have the gold make the rules.

And you think the idiot who can't balance his checkbook and thinks that bikini mud wrestling represents the peak of 'culture' in this country should be making the rules?

No thanks, I'll stick to voting successful and competent people in office.

Now Fedral... there's no such thing as "successful and competent people" to those on the left. Liberals refer to these as "those who have won life's lottery". Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Communism in the USA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know