# Lets Debate - Moral Dilemma - Force the wealth to pay for the poor



## screature (May 14, 2007)

*Lets Debate - Moral Dilemma - Force the wealthy to pay for the poor*

Spring boarding off of the "Let's argue" thread, which while being mildly amusing I found to be less than intellectually challenging, I thought I would start a thread called "Lets Debate". As the subject for debate I also thought that "moral dilemmas", where there was no clear cut right or wrong answer, would be a good starting point. I hope to turn this into a series of threads and if other community members like the idea please feel free to start your own.

In addition to providing a venue for debate I am also including a poll where people can "vote" for a given option, just to provide some "empirical" tabulation as well.

So here we go, Moral Dilemma number 1:

Should the wealthier members of society be *forced* to pay through higher taxation, for the poorer members? 

Please provide your reasons.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

I believe it's an imperative as a member of society, that the wealthy be forced to pay a *fair* rate of tax, and some of that money should aid the poor. However, I do make a distinction between poor, and unproductive.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

It's a loaded question. What you are really asking is, should wealthy people be forced to pay taxes? What the tax money is used for is irrelevant, since we do not normally get to direct how our tax money will be used. In a progressive system, the more you make, the more you pay (unless you can afford accountants to help you find loopholes). 

So many wealthy people seems to be against the redistribution of wealth in society -- that is, until they lose _their_ jobs or have _their_ security threatened. Can you say "corporate bailout"?

YouTube - The Job


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Why not just raise minimum wage so that anyone with a job can afford to live a half decent life?


Such is perhaps the bluntest tool for economic guidance. By raising minimum wage, all other products and services will only increase two or three fold and therefore we end with a decrease in real wages. The situation is far from ameliorated.

To Screature,

This debate will run in circles for you have not constructed moral parameters. Many people may bring their own moral convictions that are entirely incompatible with that of others and more fundamentally, the 'moral' positions that these people may bring, risk the chance of not being moral positions at all. For a position to be a moral one, a minimum standard must always be satisfied to ensure that the position is indeed moral. 

" which while being mildly amusing I found to be less than intellectually challenging"

While I do concur with your statement, I fear this thread will not produce anything more than a giant car accident of moral positions. 

However, it may be interesting to see.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Why not just raise minimum wage so that anyone with a job can afford to live a half decent life?
> 
> I believe that everyone deserves a roof over their head, clothing, and food on the table. It is sickening that so many homeless people exist in Vancouver and elsewhere in what is a wealthy country.
> 
> ...


MOVE-TO-CUBA!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> It's a loaded question. What you are really asking is, should wealthy people be forced to pay taxes?


Not really everyone pays taxes, unless you earn less than your basic personal exemption.

The question really asks should those who make more money than those who make less pay a higher tax *rate* to support those who make less. Clearly our taxes are not specifically targeted, but if you pay at a higher rate of taxation you are paying more (relatively speaking) to support society as a whole.

Even is there were a flat tax say 20% even those who make more would still be paying more, but they (under the current system of taxation) are paying even more again because they are taxed at a higher rate.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> To Screature,
> 
> This debate will run in circles for you have not constructed moral parameters. Many people may bring their own moral convictions that are entirely incompatible with that of others and more fundamentally, the 'moral' positions that these people may bring, risk the chance of not being moral positions at all. For a position to be a moral one, a minimum standard must always be satisfied to ensure that the position is indeed moral.
> 
> ...


It more than likely will run in circles. But that is OK as far as I am concerned. 

You say that the moral parameters should be defined. But that is assuming such parameters can be defined and would hold some objective validity.

As I am not a fundamentalist in any way shape or form, I believe that morality and ethics are subjective and relative and that objective standards don't exist and if they do they are merely imposed and most often through some form of coersion. Which is why I chose to use the word "*forced* to pay".


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Not really everyone pays taxes, unless you earn less than your basic personal exemption.
> 
> The question really asks should those who make more money than those who make less pay a higher tax *rate* to support those who make less. Clearly our taxes are not specifically targeted, but if you pay at a higher rate of taxation you are paying more (relatively speaking) to support society as a whole.
> 
> Even is there were a flat tax say 20% even those who make more would still be paying more, but they (under the current system of taxation) are paying even more again because they are taxed at a higher rate.


True, but one could also ask, should a portion of your tax dollars be going to support the horse racing industry? Or how about, should a portion of your tax dollars be used to pay for schools even if you don't have children? Or, shouldn't you have more say in how tax money is spent if you pay more taxes than someone else? This is the argument my wife's rich relatives like to bring up.

The underlying issue has to do with taxation, period.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> True, but one could also ask, should a portion of your tax dollars be going to support the horse racing industry? Or how about, should a portion of your tax dollars be used to pay for schools even if you don't have children? Or, shouldn't you have more say in how tax money is spent if you pay more taxes than someone else? This is the argument my wife's rich relatives like to bring up.
> 
> The underlying issue has to do with taxation, period.


I wouldn't argue that (but as I said the tax system is currently structured such that those who make more not only pay more, they pay at a higher rate) and they are all legitimate points of discussion, but ones that we as members of society have very little say in and most often just blindly accept. So what are your thoughts on the very questions you raise?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Cuba is a great little place.
> 
> I am not a communist though, although I am not against it, I think there should be stronger communist presence as a legitimate option for elected candidates.
> 
> ...


Hey, who you calling a commi? The word is Socialism my friend.  

I think the Scandinavian countries have developed the perfect model. Yet they have also remained outside of most major wars for the majority of their history. Also, they were extremely wealthy before they initiated such such socially engineered policies. I would live in Finland or Sweden, except I would rather be a beach bum in Paraguay than live in an icecube!


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

screature said:


> It more than likely will run in circles. But that is OK as far as I am concerned.
> 
> You say that the moral parameters should be defined. But that is assuming such parameters can be defined and would hold some objective validity.
> 
> As I am not a fundamentalist in any way shape or form, I believe that morality and ethics are subjective and relative and that objective standards don't exist and if they do they are merely imposed and most often through some form of coersion. Which is why I chose to use the word "*forced* to pay".


I mean to say that, some more fundamental and underlying moral positions that people can follow consistently and are able to defend should be defined. I do not infer that we should limit ourselves to one or perhaps two moral persuasions, quite the opposite in fact.

For this to be a meaningful and productive conversation each person or perhaps tribe of moral thought _must_ define the parameters of their convictions, so that both critics and prescribers alike can identify some underlying moral position that can explain all of their actions and commentaries on whatever subject. If we cannot do this then we risk the engagement of a discussion so ambiguous and transcendent as clouds and phantoms in the sky. 

It is not sufficient for me to say that position A is false and morally invirtuous while I say that position B is indeed quite virtuous and true without providing or identifying the underlying moral string that can explain such a conviction.



> I believe that morality and ethics are subjective and relative and that objective standards don't exist and if they do they are merely imposed and most often through some form of coersion.


Indeed. I concur to an infinite extent. For such reasons it is imperative that before we assume that a position is indeed a moral one we must verify such through various tests of integrity, consistency and defensibility. For if one cannot identify the moral position that (s)he prescribes to, remain consistent with that position in all action and conviction and be able to properly defend it then it is likely that the position is either not a moral one or the person does not properly understand the position itself and may have parroted the position from another person.

Consider this scenario. Say there is a room filled with 1000 people. One person in a corner persuades a few people around him that homosexual marriage is morally wrong and invirtuous because it defies some moral principle that the one person holds. The few people begin to spread the argument that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, however, fail to properly articulate the moral foundations of the position. The few people of this persuasion quickly extends to a few hundred and the underlying moral position is quickly lost in the masses and the people are simply 'parroting' their neighbours. 

A good example is in the United States most Americans are profoundly opposed to socialism (or what they even comprehend as socialism) because it is a popular moral position. The government approves and proliferates it and so do most Americans. However, if you were to ask an average American _why they oppose Socialism _ I doubt they would provide sufficient moral grounds for it, unless of course they were students of or had investigated the foundations of its moral foundations. This phenomenon fundamentally undermines democracy and is quite the dilemma for legislators and judges. 

I will leave you with no conclusion, since I must pack, I have to catch a flight tomorrow and my hand hurts from typing.

Just read some Ronald Dworkin if you feel like frying your brain one day. God who do you think I have to thank for writing posts like this on a Saturday night on a Macintosh computer forum...  :lmao:


----------



## johnb1 (Aug 6, 2006)

*interesting*

On the whole, I'd say yes
but with a few gotcha's
1) the money goes to stuff that benefits society as a whole, ie more afforable housing
2) the money that goes to the poor also goes to real job training and education
with marketable skills, not the mickey-mouse job finding programs that currently
exist
3) In order to get more money you must be engaged in something constructive, ie
volunteering, going to school, or working part time
4) You also must not have a whole bunch of kids that you cannot support
5) and if you do get social assistance and are unable to work more than a few days a week, that you get enough money to have a decent standard of living, and should you wish to work, you will be given the necessary skills to get a job, and having gotten that job, not be penalized for having that job by saying you can only earn $400 a month without penalty. I mean, c'mon, Welfare in Alberta is $300 a month. How can anyone survive on that? You should at least be able to earn $650 a month without grief from the Government, plus get $900 to have a decent standard of living. Means and needs tests will be mandatory. You must prove that you need social assistance and show why you need it, to prevent abuse, but not go out of your way to kick people in the butt for showing
some initiative

Just my thoughts

John B


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature, I came across this bit today and immediately thought of your thread and poll. It certainly provides food for thought on the issue. A bit long, but worth the read:

A lesson in Taxes and Economics...

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> I mean to say that, some more fundamental and underlying moral positions that people can follow consistently and are able to defend should be defined...


I see your point. However, there are very restrictive space limitations in the poll form for phrasing your question. Of course it could be elaborated upon further in the OP. 

The question was I agree not phrased the best, but I also feel that there is an inherent moral context provided because we live in a society where the imposition of higher taxation rates already exists for those who make more money and is the de facto moral standard that is accepted (i.e, people aren't rioting in the streets over it).

Yet how many of us actually take the time to question it's moral validity given the coersive nature of the system. One must abide otherwise there are penalties to be paid (inflicted). 

Most people within society are law abiding sheep (for the lack of a better word) who follow the laws of the land simply because they exist, whether they make sense or not. Of course again, this is because the breaking of those laws most often result in punitive measures brought to bear against those who defy those laws. So it goes within our law and "order" system. 

Some laws exist to protect the individuals within society from those who would wish to others harm in one form or another, murder, assault, rape, theft, etc. These laws are to most within society immutable and are irrefutably necessary and right. However many, many, many more laws exist to protect the existing "order" of things, in fear that if they did not exist society would deteriorate into chaos and anarchy. We are coerced through the threat of punitive measures to "tow the line".

Taxation laws most definitely fall into this latter category that I outlined. In this country we have a taxation structure that is imposed (forced upon) those that make more money to pay a higher *rate* of taxation than those who make less and, as I have already stated, has become the de facto moral standard. But how many of us actually stop to think about the morality/ethics of such a measure? Is it right for the state to *force* those who in many cases (I am not talking about the ultra-rich here) earn their money from their exceedingly hard work and ingenuity to be taxed at a *rate* that is higher than those who may or may not work as hard. Is this right. If all people are equal why should some be penalized (i.e. - they are not being treated equally within the tax system) effectively for their efforts.

Many might say that the rich *should* help the less fortunate and I would not disagree. But in our system of taxation the moral standard is that the rich *must* help the less fortunate. (Rich is clearly a relative term because the index of taxation begins within the middle class who in fact end up carrying the bulk of the tax burden.)

This is the moral context that I should have outlined at the out set, but I took to be a given as we all live it as an everyday reality in this country. 

So then I hope this helps to clarify the context and parameters in which this particular question was asked and thrown open for debate.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Screature,

I first must ask, have you been reading anything written by this guy?










Because from the sounds of your argument you have, and if you haven't then I would predict you would be up all night reading, and screaming "Yes!Yes!Yes!"  

------ part 2--------

From your previous post Screature, it seems that you have encountered the exact collision of ideology that I previously sketched. 


"Some laws exist to protect the individuals within society from those who would wish to others harm in one form or another, murder, assault, rape, theft, etc. These laws are to most within society immutable and are irrefutably necessary and right. However many, many, many more laws exist to protect the existing "order" of things, in fear that if they did not exist society would deteriorate into chaos and anarchy. We are coerced through the threat of punitive measures to "tow the line"."

There is a difficult line to draw here between individual liberty and communitarian coherence, justice and equality. Certainly we cannot maintain a feudal society, where the elite wealthy are not taxed and are obscenely wealthy while the rest of the population cannot feed themselves for they have had to pay taxes to support the opulence of the aristocracy. We would think such as duly immoral and indeed a wrong structure for society to follow. 

From this condition the principle of Equality is spawned and it is then proclaimed that all (wo)men are equal in the eye of government and law. 

If we were to extract this notion of equality and place it within the context of a feudal structure, we would then witness the society change for a _inegalitarian_ to a _egalitarian_. Since the principle of Equality is a static one, we then face another dilemma. For you cannot say that Equality should be conditioned based on the class or race of a peoples, for then it would not follow the principle of Equality. So we must, in order to follow our heartened principle of Equality, maintain the equal position of every person in society. From this, for example, every person would be taxed equally, irrespective of socio-economic location in society. 

However, within the Canadian context and indeed within most Western countries we see the exact opposite of this. Progressive taxation systems do not conform to the static nature of equality, for they tax the wealthier more than the less wealthy. And so therefore, at this point one moral principle has overrun or trumped the principle of equality within that specific context.

Indeed the question is, what principle; why that principle; and who does it serve? 

After we discover this, then we must initiate another exploration into any relationships and collisions such principles will have with the principle of liberty and personal sovereignty. 

That is all, tootles.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Instead of crazy taxation schemes that won't work, perhaps these steps would make more sense:

Limit the maximum income of executives to 4 times that of the lowest paid worker. Thus, if a CEO wants to rake in a half million, he had better be prepared to pay his bottom worker $125,000 per year. This would end the multitude of businesses that dish out minimum wage, because no executive would want to be limited to $25 per hour. Parliament should be limited as well - when they are pinched in the wallet, minimum wage will rise to something people can actually live on.

Companies that provide affordable housing to workers would be taxed at a more beneficial rate - like companies do in Japan, Korea, etc. Companies that are "cheap" would pay the maximum tax.

Educational reform would provide for free post-secondary education to those who can sustain high marks, and demonstrate real skills and abilities. Those that want to loaf around and not study would have to pay for their education.

Companies that lay people off without demonstrating a real falloff in business would continue to pay the equivalent payroll taxes, in order to sustain employment insurance to the laid off workers. Companies that strive to build their business and be competitive in the global economy, and that work towards real research and development - would reap tax benefits; while lazy companies that export jobs to Mexico would pay maximum taxes.

People with disabilities and workplace injuries should be given educational opportunities, and companies that hire such people would be granted further tax benefits. Companies that refuse to hire in a fair and equitable manner (so long as the job does not require specific physical or mental functionality) would be taxed at a much higher rate.

Immigrants who have been recruited to this country should be given the maximum opportunity to learn English, and get any of the educational requirements needed. Companies that hire skilled immigrants would receive tax benefits, while companies controlled by a cabal of racists would pay the max...

And on and on and on...

Taxation does not have to punish - it can be used to provide real benefits. Comapnies that do not want to be "responsible" would pay the maximum - while those that want to be "responsible" would reap benefits.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Screature,
> 
> I first must ask, have you been reading anything written by this guy?


Don't recognize the face, who is he?



Adrian. said:


> If we were to extract this notion of equality and place it within the context of a feudal structure, we would then witness the society change for a inegalitarian to a egalitarian. Since the principle of Equality is a static one, we then face another dilemma. For you cannot say that Equality should be conditioned based on the class or race of a peoples, for then it would not follow the principle of Equality. So we must, in order to follow our heartened principle of Equality, maintain the equal position of every person in society. From this, for example, every person would be taxed equally, irrespective of socio-economic location in society.
> 
> However, within the Canadian context and indeed within most Western countries we see the exact opposite of this. Progressive taxation systems do not conform to the static nature of equality, for they tax the wealthier more than the less wealthy. And so therefore, at this point one moral principle has overrun or trumped the principle of equality within that specific context.
> 
> Indeed the question is, what principle; why that principle; and who does it serve?


Adrian, while your academic approach to the question is admirable and demonstrates your particular thought *process* it does not reveal your own thoughts on the matter. 

Rather than dissecting the question, and illustrating your own particular methodology, let us just assume (as I did) that our context is that of the current time and place in which we live, replete with the underlying ideological "collisions", moral/ethical incongruities and contradictions, mutable class structures etc., etc. What are *your* thoughts about the coercive nature of a "progressive" tax system within our current context?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> screature, I came across this bit today and immediately thought of your thread and poll. It certainly provides food for thought on the issue. A bit long, but worth the read...


Most excellent illustration SINC. :clap:


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I have two questions, or rather, would like clarification of two terms that people are bandying about with great enthusiasm.

What is _rich_?

What is _poor_?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No. Ideally there should be a flat tax on income above a level deemed to be required to pay for basics.

I would prefer all tax revenue to be based on sales tax, not income, because at least in that situation you have an incentive to earn extra income to buy consumer goods. Earning more in that situation doesn't provide you with diminishing returns.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> I have two questions, or rather, would like clarification of two terms that people are bandying about with great enthusiasm.
> 
> What is _rich_?
> 
> What is _poor_?


Yes, well that is very grey isn't it.

_In Canada, there isn't a standard measure of poverty. The most accepted one, however, is the LICO. Statistics Canada measures the number of families who are below the low-income cut-off (LICO), which means those who spend 20 percentage points more of their gross income on food, shelter and clothing than the average Canadian. This figure is often used as the unofficial "poverty line." _

So according to this definition, _poor_ is and always will be a moving target as it is dependent upon the "average Canadian" and clearly that will always be in flux. That being said the average Canadian can be viewed to be _rich_ or_ wealthy_ or at least _well-off_ relative to those below the LICO.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> No. Ideally there should be a flat tax on income above a level deemed to be required to pay for basics.
> 
> I would prefer all tax revenue to be based on sales tax, not income, because at least in that situation you have an incentive to earn extra income to buy consumer goods. Earning more in that situation doesn't provide you with diminishing returns.


I tend to agree with a flat tax of some construct or another, which would require stripping away almost every form of exemption or tax credit available to maintain fairness. This is of course relative to personal taxation. Business and corporate taxation is another discussion altogether.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

screature said:


> Don't recognize the face, who is he?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To the contrary my friend. My thoughts lay in this question that I posed:

I_ndeed the question is, what principle; why that principle; and who does it serve?	
_

The man is Antonio Gramsci, a very famous Italian Marxist who examined society and asked the question that I asked above. His conclusions are remarkable and from your previous post that I responded to, you would most likely find yourself quite congruent with his positions on the matter at hand.

He wrote this:

Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci: Antonio Gramsci: Amazon.ca: Books

And this is an excellent "unwrapping" so to speak of his thoughts:

Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Political Economy: Adam David Morton: Amazon.ca: Books

The Prison Notebooks are exactly that; he wrote them while in prison in Italy. 

I must say, Gramscism is a fabulous branch of Marxism that many people would agree with so profoundly, yet ignore for its classification as a Marxist stream. His works are only $13 and are worth every penny.

Good day Screature, and a I hope you have a merry time with your loved ones.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian.: I might agree that Gramsci understood why people failed to flock to Communism, but he was never capable of creating a Marxist model by which people might agree to align their own interest with Marxist interests. 

I would say that he couldn't, because it is impossible. Even though the modern proletariat needs to be convinced to align its interests with the interests of thepower brokers, I'd say it is a fairly easy sell because it provides them with material benefit to do so. What does Marxism offer them if they switch allegiance? At its most beneficent it has only offered heartache, slavery and privation.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Adrian.: I might agree that Gramsci understood why people failed to flock to Communism, but he was never capable of creating a Marxist model by which people might agree to align their own interest with Marxist interests.
> 
> I would say that he couldn't, because it is impossible. Even though the modern proletariat needs to be convinced to align its interests with the interests of thepower brokers, I'd say it is a fairly easy sell because it provides them with material benefit to do so. What does Marxism offer them if they switch allegiance? At its most beneficent it has only offered heartache, slavery and privation.


Marxism did not offer heartache, slavery and privation. Lenin and Stalin offered that.

Marxism is more attractive on a more global scale at this point and within the poorer countries of the world (I include the United States in the poor world for several reasons). Within countries such as Canada and the Scandanavian countries, we have achieved a equilibrium of socialism and capitalism. Capitalism provides the liberty, independence and choice while socialism provides social cohesion and integrates the socio-economic mesh much tighter.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Marxism offers a Lenin, Stalin, Tito or Pol Pot to fill the power vacuum Marxism creates. It only offers hope to the downtrodden briefly before they are trod down on a scale beyond anything blamed on capitlaism.

Capitalism and socialism don't really achieve a balance. To me, it's sort of like tying a 50-pound weight around a person' neck and setting them to their tasks. The socialist tries to convince the person that the weight is helping the worker achieve his goals.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed.

Socialism provides no societal glue - anything forced on the populace by their governing betters is likely to be ill-received... much like taxes, for instance.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Too broad...

What is rich? What is poor? What if you are poor because you are lazy and think you deserve to get a free check every month?

I can't debate or answer the question...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Not sure what a balanced failure would look like, or why you are convinced both capitalism and socialism are doomed, or what you envision would naturally replace them.

However, I do agree that both systems have their good points. I haven't spent a ton of time in Cuba - I've only been once but fellow Ehmacer adagio has been there dozens of times. All I can say is that many aspects of the system there have been beneficial to the Cuban people. But there are also some serious privations to contend with.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Good day Screature, and a I hope you have a merry time with your loved ones.


And to you and your's Adrian... Where you off to?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Too broad...
> 
> What is rich? What is poor? What if you are poor because you are lazy and think you deserve to get a free check every month?
> 
> I can't debate or answer the question...


The question was quiet simple actually, should the wealthier people in society be *forced* to pay through a higher taxation rate for the poor. Now granted there are many permutations leading from the question but your code of ethics/morality would be revealed in your answer and the reasons for it.

The question I will admit was not phrased the best, but hey I was iust trying to form the basis for a debate. 

How about this. Do you believe in a forced redistribution of wealth based on a progressive scale of taxation that is relative to what one earns?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> To the contrary my friend. My thoughts lay in this question that I posed:
> 
> I_ndeed the question is, what principle; why that principle; and who does it serve? _


Ok then, what are your own answers (and if not answers, ruminations) to the questions you pose if they constitute your thoughts? You must have, one would suspect, some guiding principals by which you conduct your life and form your weltanschauung (world view).


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

It is absolutely important for the rich to be taxed at a higher rate to pay for the poor. Paying for the poor would be helping the disadvantaged, just like if the roles were reversed, it should still be done.

I think its an obligation upon the rich to assist others who are not as well off, but by no means that their money should be capped, or all their wealth be evenly distributed. In many cases, people have earned their wealth and deserve the benefits from it, but not at the expense of society.

Unfortunately the easiest and least efficient way of doing this is through taxation, but its simple and atleast something is done. Canada with its progressive tax system has it right. If I ever become wealthy, I would the marginal tax rate increases, but I am ok with that.

On a side note.
I don't beleive there should ever be truly privatized health care, at least in terms of doctors and surgeries. What I do support is privatized clinics that perform scanning procedures such as xray, mris, catscans. This has am additional requirement that it is not tax deductable etc. The purpose of this is that people who can afford to pay for these services can remove themselves from the waiting list, and not hurt the rest of society. These places already exist, but public healthcare is essential for an intelligent and developed society.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Public healthcare has nothing to do with intelligence. It is a salve to convince the public that the wealthy aren't receiving better care than they are--that better service can't be bought. They would rather have equal healthcare, even at a lower level, than to countenance better care for some.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Thank you screature, I am off to a beach in mexico where I will bring no work and no laptop.  in fact I am typing this on my iPhone in the terminal.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Vaya con Dios, Adrian. Pax, mi amigo.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

screature said:


> The question was quiet simple actually, should the wealthier people in society be *forced* to pay through a higher taxation rate for the poor.


Without a definition of what rich and poor are it's hard to answer the question, therefore it is not an easily answered question. 

Do you base it on salary? Just because you make 100K a year doesn't necessarily make you rich. Yet someone who makes 20K may feel someone who makes 100K would have to be rich but it is not so. They can both carry the same type of debt relative to their salaries, it just means you owe money on more expensive toys. 

Now if some makes mutli-millions a year, we could say they are perhaps rich (or should be in most cases) 

So no, it's not an easy question to answer as it is too broad IMO.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Gracias Dr. Yo no sabía que eres un hombre de dios. Estoy volando en el avión ahora y toda esta bien. Felicidades a ti y a tu familia.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Public healthcare has nothing to do with intelligence. It is a salve to convince the public that the wealthy aren't receiving better care than they are--that better service can't be bought. They would rather have equal healthcare, even at a lower level, than to countenance better care for some.


In what way does publicly provided health care not a measure of intelligence? Since when does the rich and the poor in Canada have equal health care? Nobody is fooled about the problems with the healthcare system, just because it is not done well, doesn't mean it is not worth doing. The betterment of the species is more important then the betterment of the few. Economic wealth and therefore strength does not make for a better civilization, but rather of one great inequities and therefore increased weakness.

I no way am I abdicating communism, that is a terrible idea, but capitalism has also proven to be unreliable of sustainability. I am happy to live in Canada with our Social-Capitalism (Welfare State), there is room for improvement in all directions.

Alright, this is aside from the point of this debate, we should probably wait for this to come up for this to come up as debate question.


Back to the Point

As stated before I do agree with a more equitable redistribution of wealth which is most easily achieved through progressive taxes, but it must not be at the expense of motivation of the rich. 

On a moral standpoint, it is tough to state that bettering oneself at the expense of society makes sense.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Eventually most great societies fail, and are replaced because they are unsustainable. Think Easter Island, on a global scale. It is where the world is heading.
> 
> Easter Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The idea is to create a stable, successful, long term society.


I would agree with you. The ultimate outcome of a civilization based on technology and capitalism, is that almost all but a few would be destitute poor living off the scraps of society. Robots do the manual work. Economies turn to knowledge based economies, which people performing simple analysis will be replace by computer code, leaving only high level decision making available. This is a extreme generalization, there will be still some scientific work to be done etc, and not at all a guarnateed conclusion.

But much like my argument, this is besides the point of this debate.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Eventually most great societies fail, and are replaced because they are unsustainable. Think Easter Island, on a global scale. It is where the world is heading.
> 
> Easter Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The idea is to create a stable, successful, long term society.


Sure, great societies fail - not "most," but all of them. Just takes a little longer for some than for others. Recent events suggest empires have ever-shorter lifespans, for that matter - they tend not to span as many generations.

So I don't disagree with your contention that societies, presumably ours included, is destined for an irrevocable fall. But I asked you what you imagine would replace it. My own answer to that would simply be: more of the same which preceded it... for all our grand talk and bold dreams, for all our technological advancements and accomplishments, humanity remains a species yet harbouring some very primeval desires. It is that array of desires which feed the empire mechanism, and which in turn contribute to the inevitable erosion and corruption of old empires and the following chaos out of which new empires and societies emerge. Empire itself is very hardy, extremely sustainable concept, it would seem - far more resilient than mere individual human capabilities.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ertman said:


> The betterment of the species is more important then the betterment of the few. Economic wealth and therefore strength does not make for a better civilization, but rather of one great inequities and therefore increased weakness.


Our health care system weakens society by allowing those with weaknesses to survive and procreate. There is no "better." It's just a choice we make, and it has effects, both good and ill.



ertman said:


> I no way am I abdicating communism, that is a terrible idea, but capitalism has also proven to be unreliable of sustainability.


Actually, capitalism has proved to be quite sustainable. Not everybody is happy being part of it, but it has proved itself to be the most sustainable of all systems so far. Socialism, such as it is, exists entirely on the shoulders of capitalism, while capitalism could handily survive without socialism.



ertman said:


> On a moral standpoint, it is tough to state that bettering oneself at the expense of society makes sense.


But from a sociological standpoint, some elements of society are often more viable than others. Sometimes you have to choose between moral and viable.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

I guess I don't care how the wealth is distributed as long as I'm able to get what I need to provide for my own. Any more than that is gravy. 

Let the poor suffer, let the rich suffer and for those who don't know/care if they're rich or poor, well, we don't suffer we just live.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

YouTube - Motorhead - Eat The Rich (Studio Version)
YouTube - Aerosmith *** Eat The Rich ***


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Our health care system weakens society by allowing those with weaknesses to survive and procreate. There is no "better." It's just a choice we make, and it has effects, both good and ill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Very true, but like the title of the thread this is a debate about morality. I find your opinion on eugenics quite interesting. I would continue to debate the point with you, but this is not the thread for our specific differnces in opinion.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ertman said:


> Very true, but like the title of the thread this is a debate about morality. I find your opinion on eugenics quite interesting. I would continue to debate the point with you, but this is not the thread for our specific differnces in opinion.


It's not my theory of eugenics. I'm not suggesting that we cut off health care to people with bad genetic codes, merely noting that the gene pool is weakening as we get better at keeping people alive. It's a cruel conundrum.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Hmm, why not have people with less money than me also subsidizing my standard of living?


The poor are already subsidizing the rich. Even the poor are supporting a massive bureaucracy of overpaid and unnecessary civil servants.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> It's not my theory of eugenics. I'm not suggesting that we cut off health care to people with bad genetic codes, *merely noting that the gene pool is weakening as we get better at keeping people alive*. It's a cruel conundrum.


Can this be proven?

In nature it's been shown that animals that have what appears to be weakness ends up being a way to strengthen the species. For example, birds with bright colorful feathers. This does nothing to protect them from predators but rather forces them to improve their survival skills despite their limitations. Obviously, the survivors of the species breed.

There are many among us who may appear to be genetically "weak" but contribute more than those who appear genetically "sound". Stephen Hawking? Christy Brown? Helen Keller? Ray Charles?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Can this be proven?


Sure, look at the rapid spread of diabetes throughout the population.



MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Can this be proven?
> 
> Stephen Hawking? Christy Brown? Helen Keller? Ray Charles?


I suppose you could play a Ray Charles song as a weakened society finally succumbs.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Sure, look at the rapid spread of diabetes throughout the population.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you could play a Ray Charles song as a weakened society finally succumbs.


Actually, your theory is completely based on eugenics, its just not the creepy Nazi version. I wasn't putting down your idea you had presented but was simply stating that it is an interesting issue in itself, but does not really have a place in the current argument, and I would entertain hearing your whole thoughts on the subject in a different thread.

However denying care to the poor because that they are poor and providing it to the rich, who may very well have genetic diseases, would also weaken the race. Then it comes into question what is determined as a genetic disorder that should not be treated, who makes that line, and who decides who deserves to live and die, becomes a moral minefield.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Sure, look at the rapid spread of diabetes throughout the population.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you could play a Ray Charles song as a weakened society finally succumbs.


Diabetes? My son was recently at a Minor Emergency Clinic and diagnosed with Type I after a glucose reading of 17. He was admitted to the hospital and his levels came back down to normal and have stayed ever since. According to the specialist he says he sees about 2 kids a year in which this happens and yet never leads to Type I diabetes. Why it happened he doesn't know, only theories. Why does Type I generally occur in children from ages 6-12? Again he doesn't know, only theories.

Type II unlike Type I generally develops in adults who have all kinds of health/lifestyle related issues and a genetic predisposition. Right?

That's all I know and I still don't understand why diabetes is a sign of genetic weakness?

Lastly, Ray Charles survived a long time despite not being able to see. Don't think he had access to all kinds of vision impaired services growing up when and where he did  There are people today with more who do worse at surviving than he did.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Sterilize the criminals for population control!


Why not just harvest their organs?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

ertman said:


> Why not just harvest their organs?


Excellent point.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> It's not my theory of eugenics. I'm not suggesting that we cut off health care to people with bad genetic codes, merely noting that the gene pool is weakening as we get better at keeping people alive. It's a cruel conundrum.


MacFury, society is getting in the path of natural evolution. If someone allergic to nuts needs to be warned that a package of peanuts "may contain nuts and or traces of nuts" then they should be swept away by evolution.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Lastly, Ray Charles survived a long time despite not being able to see. Don't think he had access to all kinds of vision impaired services growing up when and where he did  There are people today with more who do worse at surviving than he did.


Yeah, George Bush managed to be President of the United States without a brain cell in his head. Well, not a good example, since he botched that job up like no tomorrow...


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Adrian. said:


> MacFury, society is getting in the path of natural evolution. If someone allergic to nuts needs to be warned that a package of peanuts "may contain nuts and or traces of nuts" then they should be swept away by evolution.


First MacFury tosses out diabetes as being a genetic weakness yet I've not seen an explanation as to why he suggests that.

And now Adrian brings up "natural evolution". What is "natural evolution" Adrian?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What the hell does evolution or health have to do with being rich or poor? Call in the wrecking crew. This baby's off the rails.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> First MacFury tosses out diabetes as being a genetic weakness yet I've not seen an explanation as to why he suggests that.


The Genetics of Diabetes - All about Diabetes - American Diabetes Association


> You've probably wondered how you got diabetes. You may worry that your children will get it too.
> 
> Unlike some traits, diabetes does not seem to be inherited in a simple pattern. Yet clearly, some people are born more likely to get diabetes than others.


Before diabetes was treated, people tended to die rather than produce children. Diabetes is not cured, only controlled. Now, more people than ever have diabetes, as a percentage of the population.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> What the hell does evolution or health have to do with being rich or poor? Call in the wrecking crew. This baby's off the rails.


Like our First Aid course went off the tracks yesterday with at least 300 tankers and boxcars after the stupid people in class started with the retard questions...


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

SINC said:


> What the hell does evolution or health have to do with being rich or poor? Call in the wrecking crew. This baby's off the rails.


I would agree with you on that the topic has gone way off course. I am partly at fault for this, but I had tried help the coversation move back to the point, but still posted unrelated material.

I believe the reason why health care and education are discussed here is because it is a justification of the main point of the debate. It is specifically related to tax dollars being spent, and whether or not it is fair for the rich to give more $ to society per capita than the rich, which is completly related to the main argument, but with that said it has also strayed far from the point.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> The Genetics of Diabetes - All about Diabetes - American Diabetes Association
> 
> 
> Before diabetes was treated, people tended to die rather than produce children. Diabetes is not cured, only controlled. Now, more people than ever have diabetes, as a percentage of the population.


To put it simply and jump to my point, there's no way you or I or anyone else will ever come up with any solid solutions to our society's apparent woes. Whether it be genetic filtering or spreading the wealth around we will make degrees of improvement in the short term at best, only for it to unravel sometime later and then it's "here we go again".

These conversations are a great form of mental exercise but nothing more.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> These conversations are a great form of mental exercise but nothing more.


Absolutely agree. But exercise whether it be physical or mental is a good thing!


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Zeitgeist... again.
Why do we need money? All it creates is war, crime, abuse, greed etc etc.

But as long as we have the dollar, then yes, spread it out to those who need it. I am somewhat disgusted that it would be considered "Forced" instead of given at your own free will.
Anyone that needs it "forced from them" needs it taken ALL away from them, they are the sick and retarded.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Elric said:


> Zeitgeist... again.
> Anyone that needs it "forced from them" needs it taken ALL away from them, they are the sick and retarded.


Whoa!! Pretty strong words for someone who gives no reasons to justify their position. Albeit your vitriolic response belies your political penchant. 

Perhaps in the spirit of debate (let alone the season) you may wish to temper your response and actually postulate a reasonable argument as opposed to mere blanket character assaults.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Create a system where all people start out in life with no inheritance. Make inheritance illegal. After you die, everything goes to the state.


Dr. MCB this is not the first time you have proposed your anti-inheritance scheme. Why so anti-inheritance? 

The vast majority of inheritances are not of the Rockefeller variety. They are typically where someone chooses to leave something to someone who has been near and dear to them throughout their life as a token of their affection for them. Why would you deny want to deny this? What possible greater good could it serve? Remember charity begins at home.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Screature we all want low taxes and a good social safety net, education, and services available to us. Think of how well a Rockefeller or Hilton inheritance could help masses of people.
> 
> I also think of how many people are born into poverty that cannot get education due to its cost. Housing prices are also sky high, fewer and fewer can afford them without outside help beyond their incomes. Residential real estate should only be allowed to be purchased by citizens and permanent residents if they live here. Working people should be able to afford to purchase houses with wages from their employment without working overtime and still have money left over to live reasonably well.
> 
> It's a much fairer system for all.



Ah but as I indicated there are very, very few Rockefellers out there. The vast, vast majority of inheritences aren't about transfering wealth they are about passing on to loved ones something from a life lived in (at least partially) support of their loved ones (if not materially, spiritually, emotionally etc.). 

Why should an individual who has spent their life trying to create a better life for their offspring, other family and friends be forced to distribute their material gain to those for whom they have no attachment whatsoever. As I said charity begins at home and if we are not able (allowed) to share with those who mean the most to use then I fear for the coming generations. No need to help out my family or friends, the STATE will look after it! I can't think of anything more dehumanizing and at the same time removing all sense of* personal* responsibility.

No I would not want to live in that world.

You need not throw the baby out with the bath water. A little bit of pragmatism goes a long way. Rather than banning inheritances wholesale put a cap on them, a limit to that which can be bequeathed. You would catch the Rockefellers and Hiltons and leave the average individual the right to leave to their heirs that which they worked so long and hard to provide for them on their death. 

Also here is another reason why your scheme will never work. You would be taking on the Insurance Industry, one of the richest and most powerful lobbies in the world. Not gonna happen.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Actually that does make more sense, to let people keep a certain amount and anything above that amount go to the state.


I could live (and die) with that. Peace to you on this Christmas my friend and "agent provocateur".


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Sounds like you will be the recipient of much moolah. So long as it is for your benefit screw the masses?
> 
> So long as your world is good, to hell with everyone else?
> 
> ...


Whow, just when I thought we might have some common ground. No not at all, I am from a working class family where my parents worked long and hard to provide a better life for my sister and I.

When they died they left all they could to us and other loved one's as a legacy of lives lived in service of those that they held near and dear. 

I was the executor of the their "estate" and it was my duty to fulfill their last *will* and testament. To make sure that what they wanted to happen with *their* material things and gain *actually* went to those they loved and wanted to provide for. 

Until you have had such responsibility to oversee the last wishes of someone who is close to you I think you have little real experience to speak from. It is all theory to you. For me it is all too real. You might want to get your nose out of "Chairman Mao's Little Red Book" long enough to look at the real world and the real everyday peoples lives your proposed policies will impact.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Finding a golden mean in a societies wealth distribution is very hard. Just take Britain's experience:

Labour Government prior to Margaret Thatcher's Gov't - 90% income taxes drove many wealthy out of the country and caused serious hardship. Many companies couldn't hire skilled staff as anyone with any qualifications left the country. (I know lots of British engineers who got out!) Welfare dependency created a massive, almost permanent underclass.

Tory Government under Margaret Thatcher's Gov't - A huge class of wealthy financial wizards amassed a huge amount of money. They lived in a separate world. Meanwhile the country's infrastructure fell apart, public schooling became a joke, a wonderful two tier health system came about. The 'lower orders' had no way out and no way up — social mobility came to a virtual halt (no 'churn' in society).

(I may have some facts wrong here — this is from memory.)

Both extreams were a disaster. The Scandinavian countries and Japan's enlightened form of capitalism do fairly well. Canada, overall, is doing well.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

The article that MazterCBlazter has a great quote in it:



> Carnegie believed that "[t]he more society is organized around the preservation of wealth for those who already have it, rather than building new wealth, the more impoverished we will all be."


However, only a reasonable amount of tax should be taken. The middle class shouldn't suffer onerously at all, however the Irving's and Roger's should pay a considerable amount!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> So you see Screature, my proposed system is better, for *YOU*!


On this we will have to agree to disagree Your system is *your* system, but you want to make it *my* system and the system for everyone. That is my biggest problem with your system. Your system is one of coersion. Your and my experiences are extremely different as are our histories. But I want to impose nothing on you. You want to to impose your system on me and deprive me from passing on my legacy to whomever I choose.

As I said and you keep ignoring an inheritance for the vast majority isn't about passing on wealth. It is about passing on to your loved ones something of yourself something that you worked hard for, as a gift; a symbol more than anything else. Your own quote that 90% of wealth is possessed by 10% of the people is proof that what I am saying is correct. Yet you want to deprive the *average* parent the average person form giving as there last *will* to those that they loved!

I want no part of your system and I would fight to my last breath to stop it from being imposed on me or my loved ones.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Now, now boys, it's Christmas, play nice.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I read the thread and the way the question was originally raised. If the state distrbutes money to the poor, except for money voluntarily given to the state for that purpose, there is no morality in it at all. One group has confiscated money from another to salve its conscience or to "manage" the poor. Unless that money is given voluntarily, there isn't even the opportunity to do good with it--the money is passed on in a bloodless fashion so that even the tiniest sense of morality or "doing good" has passed away.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Oh well. I just want to brainstorm to come up with solutions to reduce and end poverty and give *EVERYBODY* opportunities to succeed.
> 
> Do you have any constructive ideas?


Merry Christmas MCB!!  

Your intentions are indeed noble and I have no issue at all with your stated goals. It is just a matter of the way in which they are achieved. If personal liberty is systematically and coercively deprived from the individual as expense for egalitarianism then the cost is too high. I do not believe the ends would justify the means. For a system to be morally coherent then the means of implementation must also be moral, ethical, just and fair, otherwise it is built on a lie.

As today is Christmas I do not have the time to post all my thoughts on this matter, but I will elaborate more fully when I have the opportunity. 

Peace unto you and all those that are near and dear.


----------

