My Brand of Socialism

[paigetheoracle]

By the way civility is the currency of civilization and when you give somebody something for nothing and expect nothing back, that's what you get. In socialist Britain what we're ending up with is kids who feel they should get paid for existing and that service is a four letter word, like work is. They are rude, surly and see customers as getting in the way of texting, talking and generally ignoring other peoples existence, while pouting at themselves in the mirror (and that's just the boys). With attitudes like that who will provide the goods and services to keep the country working? Not them (too resentful), so the country encourages imigration by foreign workers, who are glad to improve their living conditions.

[Buffy]

What motivates people to act? And if you don't motivate them but take away all their worries, what do they actually do with their lives?

Some percentage of us are workaholics, and will run around doing stuff no matter whether we need to or not. I'm in that group, but even I like to spend some time of the year on the beach with a Mai Tai and a trashy novel. But of course, that's not really what we're talking about as an alternative!

 

Under even the most "free" forms of socialism, work is a requirement: without this, the society can't function. Moreover--although we have some interesting threads floating around here on the subject--its pretty clear that there's a huge imbalance between "work that's fun to do and you want to do it" and the available workforce!

 

Most people think that their jobs suck, at least because of the environment even if they actually enjoy doing the work itself, and this is incredibly demotivating. If you ask these people how they'd make it better, it often is as simple as they'd like the more desirable job that they don't have (and which simply don't have enough open positions to let people take them) or they'd just like to nuke their meatheaded boss.

 

Have you ever watched "Survivor?" I think its amazing how it proves the Bell Curve on this topic: the top quartile run around working hard even if it hurts their chances of winning, the bottom quartile similarly will just lay around even if it hurts their chances of winning. The main part of the curve wishes they could be in a different role, but its amazing what they're willing to do (eat gross bugs!) in order to win a million dollars.

 

You also have to factor in the innate desire of people to not just "keep up with the Jones's" but actually be better off: If they're told they *can't*--that it would be Bourgeois or whatever--then their inherently unfulfilled even if the *like* their job.

 

So many of the arguments for these more "egalitarian" societies really like to ignore human nature or--as some of those threads I alluded to try to say--that we "should" evolve beyond our baser instincts....

 

People often say that motivation doesn't last. Well, neither does bathing—that's why we recommend it daily, ;)

Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

mmm seem to have set myself a hard task here.

I, personally, draw a distinction between socialism and communism but both terms are often used interchange ably.

According to wiki

These social critics criticised the excesses of poverty and inequality of the Industrial Revolution,

. . .

According to some accounts, the use of the words "socialism" or "communism" was related to the perceived attitude toward religion in a given culture.

In Europe, "communism" was considered to be the more atheistic of the two. In England, however, that sounded too close to communion with Catholic overtones; hence atheists preferred to call themselves socialists.[10]

Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon, founder of French Socialism

Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon, founder of French Socialism

 

By 1847, according to Frederick Engels, "Socialism" was "respectable" on the continent of Europe, while "Communism" was the opposite; the Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were considered Socialists, while working class movements which "proclaimed the necessity of total social change" termed themselves "Communists". This latter was "powerful enough" to produce the communism of Étienne Cabet in France and Wilhelm Weitling in Germany.[11]

I see Communism as a rigid authoritarian structure with complete state ownership. A particular dogma is enforced and alternative opinions are not tollerated. The Catholic Chuch propably comes closes to pure Communism today except many believe in God 'the Opium of the masses.' I am not sure but perhaps Venezuela comes next. Perhaps Saudi Arabia?

God only knows what is happening in Russia and China. Do they know?

 

How would you define the government in this country

No "Bill of Rights"

Universal Health care (private and public)

Large over 50% trade union membership,

 

Government ownership of Rail,most education establishments and schools, roads,water, power, gambling, land records and many other records (birth,death, police court, marriage etc), unlimited unemployment and sickness benefit, police, security, some airports, much of the countries land and public parks including that on 99 year lease), timber growing and forests, ambulance services,

Free or subsidised

subsisted of free prescription medicines

housing for the poor and/or rent subsidy, higher education,

free veterans pensions & counselling services, some free legal aid, some free dental services, subsided medical and psychological counselling, oversight of abusive family, control of some minorities welfare payments, housing and land, situations, most education and schools, fire brigade, some free childcare especially for the poor, respite care. generous farmer finacial assistance in drought, flood, etc

 

Laws are made and enforced customs,immigration, land use, power to resume land, tax, business, consumer, oversight of business excesses, fiscal, fishing,environment employment conditions,air safety,army, police, employment qualifications for many jobs, security,tax.

So is this country socialist or Communist? (sorry if I have repeated myself but you get the idea)

[paigetheoracle]

Personally I believe for society to survive, it needs to be pro-intelligence. By this I mean society should support the most creative beings within it (problem solvers) for it to prosper. This does not mean that the less able are not looked after (or even the more able if they slip into the less able category through illness or injury) - quite the reverse as the work of the more able requires the challenges of life (including this group) to feed their minds; that is keep their interest in reality, heightened and honed. Life is a mutually supportive entity but not without its dangers to the unwary or incapacitated (young, old, disabled - mentally or physically).

 

The brain controls the body, not the reverse but they still need each other as a combined organism. Society is like the body - made up of many diverse parts, that need the variety to function, much as your car needs its various parts to make a whole.

 

In the film 'I, Robot' we see that protecting us from our own worst elements also crushes our creativity (Islam/ communism), leading to stagnation as opposed to progress, even if that is not the intention of the founders or controllers (Commander Keonig in Space 1999 (the robot planet episode) as well as Captain Kirk in Star Trek (the plants episode where Spock becomes almost human because of spores that invade his body)make the same point). Prohibition doesn't work because it tries to ignore the problem or stamp it out (bury it), whereas acknowledging it's existence, helps deal with it - through understanding. As the joke goes 'Are you going to believe what I tell you or what your lying eyes tell you?' (Man caught in bed with another woman by his wife).

 

It's not our fears, anxieties, worries (alarm bells) that save us in daily life but our interests i.e. intellect 'What's causing this?' 'What can I do about it?' The former may alert us to danger but the latter tells us how to deal with it.

[Michaelangelica]

No answer to my question; but are you saying you believe in socialised education?

 

Communism stifles creativity?

They got the sputnik up first!

 

Islam stifles creativity?

How so?

Does Christianity and Judaism do the same? (If not, why not?)

 

Without Islam you would be still shooting bison with bows and arrows.

[paigetheoracle]

No answer to my question; but are you saying you believe in socialised education?

 

Communism stifles creativity?

They got the sputnik up first!

 

Islam stifles creativity?

How so?

Does Christianity and Judaism do the same? (If not, why not?)

 

Without Islam you would be still shooting bison with bows and arrows.

 

With regards to Islam you're historically correct but not within the present time period. The Moors in Spain did wonders but they're not doing it now and we live in the present.

 

I concede your point about sputnik, though

[Michaelangelica]

This is an evil little web site which at first glance might convince you that the Arab world doesn't do so well in the Nobel Prize department.

Intellectual Output  From the Arab World

As you can see the earliest Arab prize is 1979

(the list was most likely lifted from

Islamic History Month | About Us)

while the earliest Jewish prize is 1905.

 

I doubt if the Nobel prizes are sorted by religion. But if they are, or you can get details of every Islamic Countries' Nobel prizes since 1905 it could give some meat to your argument.

 

Are all Islamic countries socialist?

I would doubt if Indonesia is.

[Mike C]

To All:

 

When I wrote my Brand of Socialism, most critics equated it with communism.

There is absolutely no similarity with communism.

 

My Socialism is based on our Constitution and its mandated government 'of the people,'by the people, and for the people' as Lincoln aptly described in his Gettysburg Address.

 

Our CN preceded communism by a couple of centuries, so MBoS has absolutely nothing to do with communism.

Although I was familiar with Communism and Karl Marx, I did not read his book or any else connected with him.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

Mike, as I understand it, you would propose a government which restricts the amount of income a person can make. Any 'excess income' would be turned over to the government and redistributed to those that make less.

While this is not exactly a pure form of communism, it does seem to come awfully close.

And, who would decide what an 'excess' income is?

[Mike C]

Mike, as I understand it, you would propose a government which restricts the amount of income a person can make. Any 'excess income' would be turned over to the government and redistributed to those that make less.

While this is not exactly a pure form of communism, it does seem to come awfully close.

And, who would decide what an 'excess' income is?

 

As I have said, free enterprise would be allowed like inventions, books and etc.

 

But once a patent or copyright enriches the licensee, the patent or copyright can then be terminated after a specific predetermined accumulation of income rather that having it have a time of coverage like the current 17 years.

This way, there would be an accumulation of wealth but not over its predetermined value to the community.

 

The wealthy do not need more than say about 3 million to live their lavish and luxurious lifetyle. So why would they need much more than this 'unneeded' income?

 

The top billionaire incomes come to about $500,000,000 annually.

Now if you taxed this at a rate of 95%, there would still be a surpluis of 25 million as 'pocket' money.

His luxurious living costs would be deducted from the oeiginal total. So this lowers the tax a bit.

These are just examples of methods determined by a citizens committee.

 

So free enterprise would still be allowed but limited in how much wealth they can skim off the econommy.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

And who decides what level of income is 'sufficient'?

What if I make 3 million and my wife also makes 3 million, are we then taxed to bring the total down to 3 million?

I think you need to re-read the definition of 'free'

[Buffy]

The top billionaire incomes come to about $500,000,000 annually. Now if you taxed this at a rate of 95%, there would still be a surpluis of 25 million as 'pocket' money.

The Brits tried this for awhile: so many folks--including lots of rock stars--emigrated to the US that it was referred to as "the second British Invasion"...

 

Do you think we should learn from history or ignore it?

 

Be as radical as reality, :hyper:

Buffy

[Mike C]

And who decides what level of income is 'sufficient'?

What if I make 3 million and my wife also makes 3 million, are we then taxed to bring the total down to 3 million?

I think you need to re-read the definition of 'free' :hyper:

 

In our income tax code, I understand that it is better to file separate tax forms.

 

My code allows the filer to deduct the living costs of all the expenses before being taxed. Thus this taxed money would be the left over income as surplus.

 

Both cannot file the same family living expenses.

 

Anyway, these are just details of my ideas.

The importat thing about MBoS is that the security of all citizens be taken care of.

Guaranteeing jobs for all is easy when it comes to providing work.

The problem here is having the money.

That is why I advocate that all citizens be taxed at a rate they can afford to pay.

That means higher income people can pay higher taxes percentage wise.

People at the lowest income bracket spend all their dollars as living expenses. So they would not pay any income taxes.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

The Brits tried this for awhile: so many folks--including lots of rock stars--emigrated to the US that it was referred to as "the second British Invasion"...

 

Do you think we should learn from history or ignore it?

 

Be as radical as reality, :phones:

Buffy

 

Well, if they do not believe in paying taxes, then we can invite them to go to Saudi Arabia or some other Middle East country that does not tax its citizens.

While there, they can also rape women with impunity. Ha ha.

 

People that pay taxes without crying, are responsible patriots of their country. Those are the kind of citizens we would want to keep.

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

While there, they can also rape women with impunity. Ha ha.

 

Please try to stay on topic Mike!

[Buffy]

Well, if they do not believe in paying taxes, then we can invite them to go to Saudi Arabia or some other Middle East country that does not tax its citizens.

While there, they can also rape women with impunity. Ha ha.

So you're saying that not wanting to pay a 95% tax rate is equivalent to not wanting to pay any taxes at all? And that anyone who does so is a rapist?

 

Let's follow the old earl, and get the Bedlam to lead him where he would, :phones:

Buffy

[Mike C]

So you're saying that not wanting to pay a 95% tax rate is equivalent to not wanting to pay any taxes at all? And that anyone who does so is a rapist?

 

Let's follow the old earl, and get the Bedlam to lead him where he would, :)

Buffy

 

That added comment was in jest. It was just the recent news from Saudi Arabian that bothered me.

 

Regarding the taxes, That figure I quoted is proper for the people that can afford to pay at that rate and stll not have any alteration in their current lifestyles since they would still have a large sum of this income as pocket money.

 

The low income earners paying at a rate of say 5% would still be deprived of monies that they could use to increase their lifestyles but chose not to do so because of other needs.

 

Mike C