A) The government isn't making enough tax revenue to substantiate all the existing and speculative social benefits you want, which leads it to take loans that it obviously can't cover, which will lead to a recession which will degrade our living standards into oblivion.
B) The economic stagnation that is caused by the extensive taxation that the government partakes in order to cover the existing social benefits is degrading our living standards to the extent that we would be better off without said social benefits and by extension taxation as we would be free to spend our money.
Oh god the irony, nowhere have I stated that socialism or communism necessitates expanding the state, effectively making your argument a straw man. Other than that, as you seem to advocate communism, here is my argument against it:
As far as I understand communism is a societal state in which each member of society contributes the entirety of their labor to a common inventory which each member of society has equal access to. If that is the case can I take more than I contribute to the common inventory? If true that means someone else is left with less than he contributed in which case why would that person want to be part of a communist society? Can I only take as much as I contribute? if that is the case why be part of a communist society in the first place?
Do I seriously need to explain why high tax rates stagnate the economy? please educate yourself.
Oh and here's the definition of a straw man so you stop randomly accusing me of using one.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/
First of all it should go into paying off the national debt obviously, and after that it shouldn't exist, taxation should be reduced and kept to a minimum, so does government spending.
Again, you're ignoring the fact that:
A) The government isn't making enough tax revenue to substantiate all the existing and speculative social benefits you want, which leads it to take loans that it obviously can't cover, which will lead to a recession which will degrade our living standards into oblivion.
B) The economic stagnation that is caused by the extensive taxation that the government partakes in order to cover the existing social benefits is degrading our living standards to the extent that we would be better off without said social benefits and be extension taxation as we would be free to spend our money.
If we increase the corporate tax rate the corporation will move to countries with lower corporate tax rate and we'd lose both the corporations to tax and the employment they bring.
The taxation that is required in order to fund your failing safety net is stagnating the economy to the extent that people would be better off (living standards wise) without it. Not to mention that Your government doesn't even make enough tax revenue to pay for it, it relies on loans that it obviously can't pay, which will eventually lead to a recession. Oh, and Prove that people would've died without your safety net.
And to think you told me I'm ignorant of the reality of modern western economic systems. Countries rack up national debt in the way of the government spending more money than it collects by taxation, and on what does the government spend the most? welfare and social programs. Other than that you're operating on the assumption that living standards will decrease as a result of the government ceasing it's social programs, which isn't the case.
Yes indeed, each and every modern western society is, in fact, your blend of socialism and capitalism, and almost each and every modern western society is racking up national debt at an exponential rate, which is inevitably going to lead to a global recession.
The argument you present here shows a level of ignorance of the reality of modern western economic systems that it's hard to know where to start.
Capitalism with very few regulation and laws that prevent cronyism is what works best. It fails hard when people give the government power over the market which Inevitably leads to corporations using the government as a pawn to tighten their grip over the market. - that's precisely the opposite of what really works, and it's what we're seeing right now.
See? I can do this too, so do you want to continue spewing your beliefs without backing them in any way shape or from? because it amounts to nothing.
Your insinuation that my argument is a refutation of an argument you didn't make in order to ridicule an argument you did apparently make thus making my argument a straw man is a straw man in and of itself. My argument is unrelated to you or anything you've said, it's a claim that may or may not be true in fact.
So do the rich do posses some object that can be passed around and allows them to generate wealth?
Excluding the fact that you ignored my point and focused on marginal allegories i gave in order to explain my point, production isn't the creation of new material, it's the acquisition and/or rearrangement of material.
My point is that the rich don't posses some object that can be passed around and allows them to generate wealth, they simply invest in the production of goods, something that everyone can do.
Quantumhead,
Yes, the people thought "being subjugated to the will of one man's right by bloodline and/or conquest to rule over their life and death, worked" in the sense of protection from foreign invaders that would not only subjugate them but kill them and steal their produce. Remember, democracy wasn't even a concept back then, it was slowly developed as oligarchy slowly died after decades of trial and error. If you asked a medieval peasant if he supports the king, he would most likely say he does as the king provides order and protection. Do you think anyone could forcefully rule over someone else for an elongated period of time? where does someone's prowess over someone else even come from? the king is one while the people are many. why do you think the British are so proud of their queen if oligarchy is solely a symbol of oppression?
other than that, i'd like to know how you highlight text if you don't mind informing me.
Quantumhead,
Yes, everything moves forward, but through slow pragmatism, people constantly try new things and what fails dies out while what works better stays. Virtually no positive progression ever came from a swift and forceful implementation of anything.
Quantumhead,
what are the means of production? factories? the raw materials that are required in order to create factories already exist in abundance all around you, your incapability of creating factories yourself doesn't mean people that were able to create factories owe you anything.
women may advocate indecisiveness and weakness among men as a result of envy, but women are biologically attracted to aggressive and strong men. the reason being that in ancient times when an enemy tribe descended upon another and killed all the men, women could either subjecte themselves to the conquering men or die in their hands, the women that didn't subjugate themselves died and didn't pass on their defiant genes while the women that did subjugate themselves survived and passed on their capitulating genes.
other than that, your argument doesn't contradict mine.
so why is there a need for the implementation of communism through a violent revolution? can't you just form communism with a bunch of people that respond better to collective progress? why force your ideology on people? especially as if you do, it means they respond better to personal hedonism which makes them unsuited for communism.
virtually for the entirety of humanities existence women were second class citizens, and during that time we experienced mostly growth. only as recently as women were alleviated from their responsibility birth rates have begun to plummet, which will result in the dying of the west... Frankly the opposite of what you think is true. but hey, you can keep your feeling of moral superiority and watch western civilization collapse.
other than that, you made a false dichotomy, its not either feminism or inequality before the law, personally, I think men and women should be equal before the law and only encouraged by society to fulfil traditional gender roles.
are you alleging that you wouldn't have to work in a communist society? if nobody works, how would you obtain the bare minimum?
the less you work the more other people need to work in order to supplement what constitutes the bare minimum that you need. so yes, the less you work the more you receive from others.
not to mention that the "bare minimum" is food and water both we can easily obtain ourselves and we did so for most of humanity's existence.
other than that, what constitutes "using your abilities"? and I don't understand, in your version of communism people receive from what?
why would number 3 want to be part of a communist society? and you understand that communism creates an environment that encourages people not to work? the less you work the more you receive from others. other than that, what is your definition of communism?
There's no selling in communism, everything is already owned by everyone and you can't sell people something that's already theirs. a valid analogy would be 3 people, 1 produces 50$ of value, 2 also produces 50$ of value and 3 produces 200$ of value. so 1 and 2 decide to forcefully confiscate 100$ of 3's produce and distribute it between themselves so everyone's equal. if 3 wanted to give 2 and 1 his produce there'd be no need to initiate communism through a violent revolution because he'd do so himself.
