Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i have to say that tarl's post above is appalling.
that poverty is somehow normal, somehow acceptable, is not only ethically regunant but is also not good business because it builds an element of social instability into the heart of capitalism--and capitalism, for all the ideology of freedom that floats with it, in the same huge white porcelain bowl, requires social stability to operate. even as the system itself undermines it.
the idea that the redistriubtion of wealth is legal plunder is absurd. so absurd that it is difficult to know where to start to demonstrate its absurdity. maybe it makes sense in the manly fantasies informed by hack writers on the order of ayn rand, but nowhere else.
the whole communism thing is straight from the john birch society. i remain amazed that this outdated tripe has attained any currency for anyone. even if you stick with the relatively expansive assumptions about conservative credulity, it still is amazing.
world peace=world communism?
i do not know what you are talking about.
the funny thing in that is that it is the capitalist order that is interested in global domination, operating behind the figleaf of formal freedom.
just look around at the empirical world
get your head out of far right redbaiting nonsense from the middle 1950s.
from here, what manx said i would echo.
|
I find the above long on emotional rhetoric, and short on facts and logic. However, I particularly enjoyed these:
" maybe it makes sense in the manly fantasies informed by hack writers on the order of ayn rand"
"the whole communism thing is straight from the john birch society."
"i remain amazed that this outdated tripe has attained any currency for anyone."
"get your head out of far right redbaiting nonsense from the middle 1950s."
In spite of the middling length of your diatribe, you neglected to mention:
1. The basis for what you think is your (okay, anyone's) right to confiscate wealth from others. That concept was anathema to the founding fathers.
2. The income level which should trigger wealth confiscation by the government. When I can pin a socialist down on this subject, the answer tends to be anything greater than their income level. However, most of them simply duck the question.
3. How capitalism has survived without your guidance, if it's as fragile as you say.
4. If a person is automatically entitled to receive enough largesse to live wherever they want. Worded another way, is a jobless person in southern California entitled to enough money from other people to remain there, or would it be acceptable to provide enough money for a two-bedroom apartment in southern Mississippi?
Oh, one more thing:
Let's take a hypothetical. A child is born on a Florida farm, the seventh of fourteen children. No phone. No electricity. He plows fields behind a mule. His shirts are made from flour sacks.
After he graduates from high school, he goes back to work on his parents' farm, but for no pay.
How much government assistance (i.e. other people's money) should we start giving him?