Marxism

Faith, in teh past several years I have not attended a public school; I have not required the direct services of the police or fire departments; I drive very short distances.Yet my tax dollars pay for the education of children who are not me or mine. My money pays for fire protection that I (thankfully) did not need to use. I help pay for the roads and freeways that I barely even use. My hard-earned dollars go to police officers who have never needed to protect me from a break-in, or punish anyone who has committed a crime against me.By your logic, the police are "stealing" from me, because I am forced to pay someone else's salary. California is "stealing" from me to pay for roads I don;t even use.Government exists for a very specific set of reasons, Faith. Among them is the protection of the public safety (which is why we all pay into the police, the fire department, the military, even if we don't directly use any of their services and even if we disagree with a given expenditure).I would argue that welfare, unemployment, and food stamps are in no way "stealing," but are rather a social safety net for when we stumble and fall - not much different from the police or the fire department.Is it morally acceptable to allow a family to become homeless or even die because a parent loses a job in an economic downturn? Who bears the responsibility to provide care and living accommodations for disabled people who cannot work, particularly those who don;t have any family to fall back on? What about the working poor, the people who do have jobs that pay only minimum wage and have to raise a family, and so cannot afford their living expenses alone?What about the consequences of not providing for social services like welfare, food stamps, disability, and unemployment?Without unemployment a few years ago, I would have been ruined as a productive member of society. Because of government aid when I was unable to provide for myself, I was able to take out student loans and return to school - the end result being that government aid in the form of unemployment insurance and federally guaranteed loans has allowed me to get back on my feet as an even more productive member of society than I was before. I have now paid far more into the government and the economy in general than I ever took in aid.What happens when people have no place to turn for food and shelter? From what I understand crime increases, as the desperate need to eat, and they'll steal to survive (that's real, violent theft, Faith, not just taxation). Theft forces a greater expenditure on police protection, and being robbed can drive another person into a desperate situation if they were already living close to the edge. Wouldn;t it simply be easier and more beneficial to everyone involved to simply make a program that provides money for basic living necessities like food and shelter so that, rather than focusing on tomorrow's meal, a destitute person can focus on ways to get back on their feet, like getting a job or going back to school?Here in the US, we have the capacity to guarantee an absolute minimum standard of living. We can take the moral stand that nobody [i]has[i] to be homeless, that no children need to starve, that losing your job doesn;t have to be the end of the world. Yes, this requires that all of us pay a small fraction of what's necessary in the form of taxes.But in your case, wouldn't Jesus want you to feed and clothe the poor and the sick? When you accuse the poor of "stealing" through taxation, aren't you accusing Jesus of stealing, since what you do to the lowest people, you also do to Him? Wouldn't Jesus, the guy who walked around healing blind people and lepers, feeding the hungry, and saying that the meek will inherit the Kingdom of God, support any social program that reduced the suffering of those in need?Yes, there will be people who abuse the system and sit around being lazy, living on the government teat. All systems are open to abuse. But what about the hard-working people who've just had some bad luck, or who have even made some bad decisions in their lives and want to make things right if given the chance? What about the sick and disabled, who physically cannot provide for themselves?Don't we have a moral obligation (and in your case even a religious obligation) as a society to help those people?

I agree wholeheartedly. Indeed one large problem with the accumulation of wealth is that eventually people reach a limit beyond which they cannot spend what they are earning. At that point the money stops flowing,a nd the economy suffers as a result.It's also the fatal flaw with so-called "usage tax," where taxation is driven exclusively through outgoing money - something like sales tax. As wealth increases, the proportion of money earned to money spent rises. The poor spend nearly all of their money, which drives the economy. The wealthy hoard money, which halts the economy. While I am not in the same boat, my girlfriend is. As I've mentioned once before, she has HIV - a disease that, contrary to common perception, is not limited to those who "deserve it" (though I can;t honestly say that anyone "deserves" such a thing). I know of one man who contracted the disease from his wife, whom he was perfectly faithful to...unfortunately, she was not faithful to him. I know of aman my age who, as a boy, was in a car accident while travelling in Mexico, and was infected from a blood transfusion.And that says nothing about the millions of people in this country alone who are disabled due to no fault of their own and who have no recourse, no family or other source of finances to fall back on because care is simply too expensive and many of them cannot work. hell, even my girlfriend finds it extremely difficult to work even part-time because the pills that keep her alive and healthy also drain her energy and leave her feeling nauseous to the point of nearly vomiting constantly.Denying health care or even just making it more expensive for these, the most vulnerable people, is morally reprehensible. Allowing people like you or my girlfriend or the millions like you to fall between the cracks if you aren't fortunate enough to live in the right state or have a job (or in my girlfriend's case, a boyfriend who has a job where I can put her down as a "domestic partner" on my insurance) is simply unacceptable.Best of luck with your continued treatment, by the way. Indeed.I am of the opinion that "Atlas Shrugged" is one of the most harmful, morally repugnant books known to man. Trickle down economies only exist in the imaginations of Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, and their philosophical descendants.

And yet you don't understand the idea of providing social services like unemployment, welfare, food stamps, and universal healthcare despite the fact that it could happen to you.I presume, Faith, that your source of income is a job. Perhaps you also have a spouse who provides income.What happens if your job(s) are lost? If you can't find a new job before your savings run out?Wouldn't that sort of misfortune be akin to losing your house in a fire? What if you had a life-threatening illness as well? What if it prevented you from ever working?Do you really think these things can't happen to you? Doesn't it benefit society as a whole to have a safety net to ensure that people struck by misfortune or even those who have made poor choices are able to have a chance to become productive citizens? Don't we have a moral imperative to help the needy of society when society has the means to do so? What would Jesus do, Faith?

Private corporations are also wasteful. Private corporations will also make decisions you object to.But most relevantly, private corporations don't care whether you get well or not. They're in it for the money. Their incentive is to make you pay your premiums, and then deny as much care as possible. The pharmaceutical companies' incentive is you treat disease, but never cure it, guaranteeing customers for life.A government program doesn't have that incentive. They don't care about premiums or profits. Their incentive is to get people healthy in the most efficient manner possible so that more available resources can be used for everyone else. Their incentive is to serve the public good so that the people at the top keep their jobs.I fail to see how privatization, even if we dismiss how feasible pure privatization could be, would resolve anything.

And yet welfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and universal healthcare do serve the entire citizenry as a whole, in the same capacity as police and fire protection.Not one of them involves stealing from one to give to another. As RAZD put it, each and every one of those programs is justified by enlightened self interest. There are benefits to each of us as individuals to providing for those among us who are needy, as well as the obvious benefits we receive when we need to avail ourselves of the same benefits.

Really? So Jesus would be against social programs that serve the same function as private donations, but with far greater capacity and effectiveness than handing our some change to a bum on the street?he'd be against guaranteeing health coverage for all of the sick and disabled?He'd be against providing housing for the homeless?He'd be against feeding the hungry?That's not the Jesus I read about. The one I'm familiar with said that however we treat the most desperate, impoverished, sick, and hurt among us, that's how we're treating him. I'm sure he'd support individual private donations, but I'm also pretty sure he'd support any government action to do the same on a larger scale.Because Faith, by opposing those programs, you're effectively telling those who aren't helped by private donations, those who are poor, who are sick, who are disabled, that they can just suffer and die in hopelessness and despair.Which means that you're telling Jesus that it's okay for him to suffer and die, too.It's a choice, Faith, because we as a society can provide that to our citizens. Other countries do it right now.

I get lots in exchange.I get a safer society, knowing that my poor neighbors' basic needs are taken care of, so that they won't need to resort to stealing to survive.I get a healthier economy, because my poor neighbors are able to continue to contribute by buying goods and services, instead of being homeless on the street.I get a cleaner society, because my poor neighbors don't have to live on the street.I get the assurance that, if I stumble and fall like my poor neighbor did, I too will have the social safety net of welfare so that I can build myself back up and remain a productive member of society.And I get the moral satisfaction that I, even if only partially, am responsible for helping the most needy and desperate avoid the pain, despair, and humiliation of homelessness and ruin.Honestly, Faith, I get quite a bit out of welfare, even if I'm not the one getting the checks.

I get lots in exchange.I get a safer society, knowing that my poor neighbors' basic needs are taken care of, so that they won't need to resort to stealing to survive.I get a healthier economy, because my poor neighbors are able to continue to contribute by buying goods and services, instead of being homeless on the street.I get a cleaner society, because my poor neighbors don't have to live on the street.I get the assurance that, if I stumble and fall like my poor neighbor did, I too will have the social safety net of welfare so that I can build myself back up and remain a productive member of society.And I get the moral satisfaction that I, even if only partially, am responsible for helping the most needy and desperate avoid the pain, despair, and humiliation of homelessness and ruin.Honestly, Faith, I get quite a bit out of welfare, even if I'm not the one getting the checks.

Really?I thought we were talking about welfare? That's what I was talking about. That was what you said you were talking about.What's the different concept? There's no direct exchange for police and fire protection, either.Didn't you say that the difference between moral theft (if not legal theft) and "legitimate" government services was when the government used public tax dollars to support an individual when that individual cannot support themselves, as opposed to using those tax dollars to benefit society as a whole?What I;m trying to point out to you, Faith, is that government assistance for the poor in the form of welfare does directly and significantly benefit society as a whole by helping the individuals. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Faith can't see the forest. All she sees are some of the trees, and moral absolutes.

Faith, your issues are twofold:1) you react emotionally to any perceived slight, real or imagined2) you refuse to even consider any opposing view. Your views are set in stone, and will not be changed, by logic, reason, or anything else short of actual divine intervention.Just look at the progress of this thread. You've become frustrated to the point of childishness with your caps lock and silly insults. I'll certainly grant that in some cases you've been goaded on - but the vast majority of posts here have been people attempting to explain something to you from dozens of different perspectives in the hope that just one of them will get through to you. Instead, though, you take disagreement as personal insult, responding with anger and the repetition of your (often self-contradictory) views, louder and with more acerbic language.Quite honestly Faith, I don't think you're capable of honest and open debate. I think that you've demonstrated that in any topic you bring up, whether it be evolution, politics, religion, or anything else, your views will be solidly etched in immutable stone beforehand, and no amount of evidence or argument will be able to penetrate the impregnable fortress of your defensiveness and emotional tantrums.Your constant mantra is that we don;t understand what you're saying. But, Faith, we see exactly what you write.In the other thread when you say that mutations are irrelevant to the reduction or increase in diversity through selection, we understand that that means you haven't the foggiest clue how evolution does or does not work, regardless of what you've read or studied. When you ignore examples where diversity is reduced to zero by beginning with a single, individual organism (the ultimate reduction in diversity through selection), and then watching as diversity naturally increases, you demonstrate that you will ignore evidence counter to your view and label anything you disagree with as "irrelevant" or "you just don;t understand what I'm saying."In this thread, you've provided nothing more than emotional iterations of "you don't have the right to take my money!" You don't pay attention to what is or is not similar to welfare. You don;t care what we say. You don't care if welfare is in fact comparable to any other government program - you disagree with it for absolutely no rational reason, and you label it as "stealing" even though such programs match no legal definition for that term, and the "moral" argument that welfare constitutes "stealing" only seems to apply for you - it's "stealing" because you don't like it, period. Even if you're benefiting directly from identical programs.I don't think it's a matter of slowing down responses or taking a break. I don't think it;s a matter of reading more books, or more discussion to reach common ground. there is no common ground, Faith, because you are not interested in debate, discussion, logic or argument. You just want other people to validate your personal views, and anything else serves only to enrage you.

Of course there's a reason, Faith. I think you want to see your views validated by others, as I said. It's even a good reason. The problem is that your arguments are never affected by anything. You concede nothing, evidence and logic and argument all roll off of you like they never existed. There is literally nothing I or anyone else could say, accurate or inaccurate, that would make you change your position. You will still view welfare as theft. You will still believe that evolution is false because selection reduced net variety, and that mutations are irrelevant. I never said that. I don't think you're evil, Faith. I just don't think you're able to participate in an open and honest debate. I think that your immediate reaction to disagreement is emotional defensiveness, and I think that emotional reaction overrides any possibility of a logical and rational exchange. Others have called you a liar. I have not. I don't think you're lying, Faith. I think you believe every word you type, even when you say things that the rest of us see as contradictory. I think you really believe that welfare is stealing and immoral, even though you receive government rent assistance. I believe you when you say you're reluctant to accept such aid, and I think the contradiction inherent in accepting aid when you believe that the aid is a form of theft creates cognitive dissonance, not dishonesty or "evil." I don't think you're stupid. I think you're stubborn, and react more with emotion than with logic. Your arguments in your evolution threads betray the fact that, despite how much you've read, how much you've participated here, and how many videos you've watched, you still don't understand the mechanism described by the Theory of Evolution. Your attempt to talk about reductions in diversity while insisting that mutations are irrelevant are much like trying to talk about an internal combustion engine without discussing valves and cylinders. Your posts in this thread show that, when it comes to welfare, you do not see or acknowledge in any way the benefits to society as a whole to providing such a safety net; you see only your pre-conceived moral absolute.I think, in both cases, this is due to the fact that you immediately become emotionally defensive when someone tries to disagree with you or offer correction to a misconception on your part. It's not about who's right or wrong. Especially in this thread, we're talking about an extremely complex social issue where easy, black/white, right/wring answers just don't exist.It's about discussion, and you you debate. Or rather, that you don't debate. You state your views, and when someone challenges those views, you become emotional and defensive to the point that you resort to childishness like the very post I'm replying to.You don't address points. You don't respond with evidence. You don't even acknowledge that I've made any statements. You simply throw emotional, sarcastic venom at a perceived insult as you become defensive.

Of course there is. If you think I'm wrong about a given point, you can always say so, and why. I understand, Faith. I compeltely understand why you think welfare is stealing. And while I also agree with nwr that the term "stealing" provokes a strong emotional response, I still get why you use the term.I still disagree that it applies, even under your definition. But that's beside the point. Apologies - I came to the thread late, when discussion had already moved on to welfare. Quite honestly, I see the term "communism" and "marxism" and even "soacialism" as emotion-laden boogeymen, terms that are used not to refer to any socieconomic system in particular so much as to carry negative connotations, much like calling someone a "nazi."To be frank, I favor practicality. I certainly don't favor the examples of communism we've seen in the world so fa, because they plainly haven't worked for the benefit of the societies that used them. However, I won;t immediately dismiss a proposition simply because someone labels it "Marxist." Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and even a system that doesn't work as a whole may have some useful nuggets we can learn from. If it benefits society, I'm likely to favor it, even if I don;t directly see benefits. It certainly can be. The problem, Faith, is that you stopped reading what others were saying compeltely. Maybe you scanned the words, but you never even acknowledged cetain statements.It was pointed out to you in several posts (I know I did so multiple times just myself) that we all do get something back from welfare, and so by your own definition it cannot qualify as "stealing."You didn't once attempt to falsify the social benefits of welfare. You never even acknowledged that we had said anything about it. That's the behavior that makes it difficult or impossible for you to have an open and honest debate. I can hardly criticize when it comes to losing one's temper in debate. Buz particularly has been able to get a rise out of me.It's not anger that's the issue. It's what you do with it. You don;t just get angry, you become defensive to the point of ignoring your opponents' words. Rather than providing an argument, you hand out sarcasm. Instead of addressing points, you use caps lock and repeat yourself. Instead of in any way acknowledging that you might be wrong, you say that everybody else just isn't understanding. Indeed, an argument from popularity is a logical fallacy, and I couldn't agree more.The problem, though is that despite a dogpile of people repeating some of the same points, you ignore them. Once again, using your definition of "stealing" as taking something for which you are given nothing in return, many people informed you of the social and even individual benefits of a welfare program. You never argued that point - you never acknowledged that it was made, though it was made many times by many posters.The fact that you, personally directly benefit from the welfare programs you continue to pay into with your part-time employment (meaning you are receiving something directly in exchange for what was taken in taxes) has prompted you to mention how reluctant and even potentially hypocritical you are, but you cannot seem to realize that your own example falsifies welfare as stealing even under your own definition of the term.The issue has nothing to do with the number of people supporting an idea, but what you choose to simply ignore that makes it impossible for debate to continue.You feel like the only sane person in a madhouse, and we all feel like we're arguing with a brick wall. I'm sorry, Faith, but your own posts show that you don't. You cannot exclude mutations when talking about a net increase or reduction in diversity any more than you can talk about human respiration without mentioning the lungs.Disagreement is fine - it's how debate starts. But, and I say this without any malice or insult intended, you would fail a high-school level Biology exam on evolution from what you've posted here. Again, I never said you were stupid. I simply think that your pre-existing beliefs prevent you from grasping the concept to a sufficient degree to talk about it accurately.You cannot talk about variety in evolution without mutations.Selection takes away variance by killing off (or at least reducing the population of) the less fit.Mutation adds variety by directly causing the emergence of altered features.Even if you so strongly select for a given attribute (say, long beaks) that no other possible allele can survive in the population, other alleles (say, ones that control feather color, or what have you) will be unaffected and will continue to drift or be guided under their own selective pressures. The process of mutation never stops, and selective pressures change over time with the environment, so variety continues to increase so long as a breeding population continues to exist. Even when variety is reduced to effectively nil by selecting only a single individual organism (meaning only one option for every allele, no variance at all), we still see variety increase as the population grows, and even still as we kill off large segments of that population with a new selective pressure. Not at all, Faith. If you can poke a hole in any scientific theiry, evolution or otherwise, I'd be supremely intrigued. But you have to address teh actual theory, not just your comprehension. The version of evolution in your head is significantly different from the version in mine, or in a biologist's. Of course it's not true.It's accurate given the evidence we have available. That's the thing, Faith you're talking about "truth," and you think you already have the supreme "truth" fromt eh Bible. You;re just trying to find the specific facts that back you up, and you "know" they must be there because of teh Bible.Science isn't about truth. It's about accuracy. So far, every prediction we make using the Theory of Evolution is validated by the evidence we find. That means that, even if it's not quite right, it at least produces pretty accurate results.To attack the Theory of Evolution, you need to point out a prediction it makes, and show how that prediction is falsified - show where the theory is inaccurate.