Pope says communists are closet Christians

a reply to: defcon5

No, there is difference between living a mutually chosen communal lifestyle and having one imposed on you a la communism.

When I see "communism" used in this world, it cannot be separated from the political power system used to impose it. When Christ and his followers lived was something else that deserves its own word now, IMO, because it gets used to try to endorse the political system.

I agree with you, however, that if we had a perfectly lived Christian society, it would look very much like a communal or socialist society. However, I think there would still be common respect for rights to person and property to as Christ too often used those concepts in his teachings. I think there would be a lot less materialism, as in none really, and a lot more understanding of sharing and working together for the common good and needs of all.

a reply to: ketsuko

I agree with you, however, that if we had a perfectly lived Christian society, it would look very much like a communal or socialist society. However, I think there would still be common respect for rights to person and property to as Christ too often used those concepts in his teachings. I think there would be a lot less materialism, as in none really, and a lot more understanding of sharing and working together for the common good and needs of all.

Thank you, ketsuko.

Thank you for posting this.

a reply to: Chiftel

Actually, yes, taxation is theft. Just because we allow it by law makes it no less theft. And yes, all the world was trending toward statism leading up to WWII; however, FDR's New Deal is more properly understood as Fascism which is public/private partnership where the businesses are privately owned by extremely tightly controlled and dictated to by the state to the point where the state might as well own them. Obamacare today is actually a decent example of Fascism.

The USSR was more communist in the state owned the means of production and set the quotas through a centrally planned economy. Europe's left/right axis exists between fascism on one end (right) and communism on the other (left). Both are state controlled tyrannies, but in the run up to WWII there was actually fierce debate and infighting between the two groups over which ideology would control Europe.

The US is different in that the right here is libertarian/classic liberalism and the left is any form of statist tyranny.

So really, the US was firmly statist through the Great Depression and into WWII and as it emerged. Why do you think people were so quick to pass the presidential term limit Amendment? They were realizing, among other things, how close they came to falling under the same spell that had destroyed Europe. Instead of going all statist, the pendulum started to swing back, but it was a slow process.

So, no, this right winger doesn't refute you.

Btw, Wilson was also a statist during WWI.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: NavyDoc

Communism does not necessarily treat everyone equally. There is still a hierarchy. Was there not an Indian chief or a tribal leader who was lavished with more gifts than other members of the tribe? If someone lavished the tribe with gold was it not the chief who held possession of it and decided what to do with it? The main thing about communism is that decisions are made based on the benefit of the whole population rather than the enrichment of a select few. Those that were of higher value, generally still received more but not to the extant that the lesser went wanting. And that is what communism is really about. The state owning all and working for the benefit of the people. Just because there is no profit does not mean that productio0n stops. It just gets financed by the state rather than private entities.

Alaska, for example, is communist in that the oil revenues get split between all citizens of the state regardless of whether they contribute to the industry or not. Would it be better if all this money instead went to private companies?

I am in favor of communism or socialism for our needs and capitalism for everything else. We can and we should set a minimum living standard in line with our resource availability. When that oil runs out a good percentage of those capitalist will be screaming for a communists solution.

Ah, but other proponents of capitalism say it is a classless society without a hierarchy methinks the communist "purists" need to agree on a definition.

Okay, so you think a communists state has a hierarchy and that "some people are more equal than others." What stops those to make the decision from making decision that primarily benefit themselves and their friends like in the Soviet Union?

How does the communist state decides who "has higher value than others?"

If all basic needs are met by the state, how does the state ensure that people are contributing to the best of their ability rather than just sitting around because all of their needs are met--because, obviously, if enough people did just that, nobody's needs would be met. The State, Communist or Capitalist, cannot create things out of thin air.

a reply to: ketsuko

Actually, yes, taxation is theft.

Do you know what taxes are supposed to do?

Money provided by taxation has been used by states and their functional equivalents throughout history to carry out many functions. Some of these include expenditures on war, the enforcement of law and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of contracts, etc.), public works, social engineering, subsidies, and the operation of government itself. A portion of taxes also go to pay off the state's debt and the interest this debt accumulates. Governments also use taxes to fund welfare and public services. These services can include education systems, health care systems, pensions for the elderly, unemployment benefits, and public transportation. Energy, water and waste management systems are also common public utilities. Colonial and modernizing states have also used cash taxes to draw or force reluctant subsistence producers into cash economies.

Governments use different kinds of taxes and vary the tax rates. This is done to distribute the tax burden among individuals or classes of the population involved in taxable activities, such as business, or to redistribute resources between individuals or classes in the population. Historically, the nobility were supported by taxes on the poor; modern social security systems are intended to support the poor, the disabled, or the retired by taxes on those who are still working. In addition, taxes are applied to fund foreign aid and military ventures, to influence the macroeconomic performance of the economy (the government's strategy for doing this is called its fiscal policy; see also tax exemption), or to modify patterns of consumption or employment within an economy, by making some classes of transaction more or less attractive.

A nation's tax system is often a reflection of its communal values and/or the values of those in power. To create a system of taxation, a nation must make choices regarding the distribution of the tax burden—who will pay taxes and how much they will pay—and how the taxes collected will be spent. In democratic nations where the public elects those in charge of establishing the tax system, these choices reflect the type of community that the public wishes to create. In countries where the public does not have a significant amount of influence over the system of taxation, that system may be more of a reflection on the values of those in power.

en.wikipedia.org...

My understanding of taxes is far from perfect, but what I do comprehend is that if taxes didn't exist, we'd be much worse off. Taxation is not theft, it is financial salvation from what otherwise be a fiscal hell for everyone involved.

If I'm wrong, I'm open to further education in the subject.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I've never made any secret of that, but the reality is that human nature prevents that kind of society from forming in this world. There will never be that kind of existence between any but the smallest of groups. It's sad, but it's true. It could only grow as big as the first person to come along and take advantage of that system.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Chiftel

Actually, yes, taxation is theft. Just because we allow it by law makes it no less theft. And yes, all the world was trending toward statism leading up to WWII; however, FDR's New Deal is more properly understood as Fascism which is public/private partnership where the businesses are privately owned by extremely tightly controlled and dictated to by the state to the point where the state might as well own them. Obamacare today is actually a decent example of Fascism.

The USSR was more communist in the state owned the means of production and set the quotas through a centrally planned economy. Europe's left/right axis exists between fascism on one end (right) and communism on the other (left). Both are state controlled tyrannies, but in the run up to WWII there was actually fierce debate and infighting between the two groups over which ideology would control Europe.

The US is different in that the right here is libertarian/classic liberalism and the left is any form of statist tyranny.

So really, the US was firmly statist through the Great Depression and into WWII and as it emerged. Why do you think people were so quick to pass the presidential term limit Amendment? They were realizing, among other things, how close they came to falling under the same spell that had destroyed Europe. Instead of going all statist, the pendulum started to swing back, but it was a slow process.

So, no, this right winger doesn't refute you.

Btw, Wilson was also a statist during WWI.

Standing ovation. Well said.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Chiftel

Actually, yes, taxation is theft.

Ok. According to you, taxation is theft.

Isn't property then also theft or is that somehow different?

Why?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I've never made any secret of that, but the reality is that human nature prevents that kind of society from forming in this world. There will never be that kind of existence between any but the smallest of groups. It's sad, but it's true. It could only grow as big as the first person to come along and take advantage of that system.

Really?

What is human nature?

Is this human nature?

originally posted by: Chiftel

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Chiftel

Actually, yes, taxation is theft.

Ok. According to you, taxation is theft.

Is property then also theft or is that somehow different?

Why?

If you worked for it either to produce it directly or to earn it, it is your property.

Don't go into the idea that someone who has workers is stealing their work. They are paid for their labor. In a free society, the employer/employee contract is one that is mutually agreed upon by both parties. A worker can choose to accept what an employer is offering or not. Generally, the value of labor is set by the amount of available workers who can perform the job vs. the number of available positions. Many workers and few positions favor the employer while few workers and many positions favor the worker.

And wealth is not a finite pie. If it was, just by growing a tomato plant on my patio I am somehow stealing those tomatoes from others even though that tomato plant wouldn't exist without my labor to grow it. I believe there is a children's story that illustrates this concept called The Little Red Hen.

a reply to: Chiftel

Human nature is where even one person finds a way to take advantage of the system. Study the history of Jamestown colony. In the very beginning, they held all their possessions in common, and they abused that reality. No one thought of working to produce food for everyone. So everyone held a common share of a dwindling food supply. Pretty soon, everyone had a common share of nothing, and they almost all starved to death or died of disease.

In short, they took advantage of the common share, and it nearly killed them.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Chiftel

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Chiftel

Actually, yes, taxation is theft.

Ok. According to you, taxation is theft.

Is property then also theft or is that somehow different?

Why?

If you worked for it either to produce it directly or to earn it, it is your property.

Don't go into the idea that someone who has workers is stealing their work. They are paid for their labor. In a free society, the employer/employee contract is one that is mutually agreed upon by both parties. A worker can choose to accept what an employer is offering or not. Generally, the value of labor is set by the amount of available workers who can perform the job vs. the number of available positions. Many workers and few positions favor the employer while few workers and many positions favor the worker.

And wealth is not a finite pie. If it was, just by growing a tomato plant on my patio I am somehow stealing those tomatoes from others even though that tomato plant wouldn't exist without my labor to grow it. I believe there is a children's story that illustrates this concept called The Little Red Hen.

So you feel that we shouldn't have to pay taxes at all?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Chiftel

Human nature is where even one person finds a way to take advantage of the system. Study the history of Jamestown colony. In the very beginning, they held all their possessions in common, and they abused that reality. No one thought of working to produce food for everyone. So everyone held a common share of a dwindling food supply. Pretty soon, everyone had a common share of nothing, and they almost all starved to death or died of disease.

In short, they took advantage of the common share, and it nearly killed them.

So you also feel that the essential meaning of human nature is opportunism. Do you think humans are evil as well?

a reply to: ketsuko

What about the raw materials? Do I own them by default retroactively as well just because I used them?

So it's okay for me to take 'your' steel from you in order to make a swing?

Also, what about stuff I build together with other people?

Who owns what, how much?

Or stuff I build or make for my employer? Don't I own that as well, by your definition?

Or how about stuff I didn't contribute one iota towards making but buy with money I or someone else (a banker) conjured up out of thin air?

Also, how can I own land? No one made that. So how was the first link in the chain of title of land legitimate and not simply theft from the commons (common/joint property of the whole human race)?

Who made the raw materials I might have used to make my stuff? Who owns that and who doesn't?

Why not?

Which human made the earth? Who are his/her progeny?

Why should his/her progeny own the earth, if he/she is no longer (died, departed to another multiverse - whatever)? How do they own it? Collectively contemporaneously or consecutively individually/completely? Who owns what/how much/when?

Why should they be entitled to inherit their parent's earth?

What is the epistemological legitimacy/argument for the right of inheritance?

From where or what does it follow that you should be entitled to what your parents owned?

Explain.

Epistemologically.

No typical shallow right wing syllogisms and tautologies, pls. No sentimental 'arguments'.

Explain why I should be entitled to my father's property as I am not my father and he is no longer alive.

Does right of property survive your death that you can choose what should be done with it / to whom it goes after you've died?

Why? Why should this be so?

According to what/whom?

Again, no arbitrary declarative statements, pls.

Argue why you ought to own what you own.

Please be advised a priori, however, that this is a variation of David Hume's "is/ought problem" and thus unsolvable. You can not arrive by consistent argumentation at the conclusion that property ownership should exist rather than assume this conclusion a priori anymore than you can arrive at moral values.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Chiftel

Human nature is where even one person finds a way to take advantage of the system.

Oh, so now human nature is simply what you state it is? I see.

Is this what passes for arguing on the right?

Study the history of Jamestown colony. In the very beginning, they held all their possessions in common, and they abused that reality. No one thought of working to produce food for everyone. So everyone held a common share of a dwindling food supply. Pretty soon, everyone had a common share of nothing, and they almost all starved to death or died of disease.

In short, they took advantage of the common share, and it nearly killed them.

So, instead, someone should own property and receive the fruits of the labour of others, who don't own it?

Is that your solution?

What about when machines grow the food almost completely automatically, without any human intervention?

What about when most everything is done this way?

What do we do then?

Or when one person's work with machines and tools provides for the reasonable needs of thousands of other people? How can those other people have their needs met?

Should all 7 billion of us produce enough for 700 billion just so we can afford to consume one 100th of what we produce or starve?

Who buys the excess 99% of production? Who do we sell it for? How will they pay? With what?

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
So you also feel that the essential meaning of human nature is opportunism. Do you think humans are evil as well?

I've always thought that the problem with the right is that it projects what they know about themselves to what they assume everyone else of also being.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000



Your OP is just silly.... that's not really what he said and he was being tongue in cheek and "bigging up" his religion.
He's saying that the Communists were not the first to champion the poor and call for financial and social equality, Jesus got there first.

It's really a non-issue that you're trying to make into something.

Lame.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Don't go into the idea that someone who has workers is stealing their work. They are paid for their labor. In a free society, the employer/employee contract is one that is mutually agreed upon by both parties. A worker can choose to accept what an employer is offering or not.

Why shouldn't I go into that idea? Because it is terribly true and terribly inconvenient for your ideology? Where does profit come from if not what either the employees or suppliers are paid beneath what they deserve and/or what the customer pays beyond what they should?

How is the employee free not to choose employment?

Is the choice between homelessness + starvation or malnutrition + ill health on the one side and submitting to employment on the other voluntary?

How is that free? Don't people need water, food, clothing, shelter, medicine, medical attention just to keep on being alive?

How are you free to look or search for however long you want?

Furthermore, how are you free to not submit to employment when basically the entire planet is owned and there's no frontier territory out there for you to emigrate to so you can feed/sustain yourself off the land through your own work?

Huh?

How am I not coerced to submit to employment (what ever employment I can find, with whatever conditions, workload, hours and remuneration) when I have no alternative to keep myself alive because of other people's private property which is basically an illegitimate coercion against me not to use 'their' land to live off of?

If I come to you in the parking lot together with another bloke and I ask you to please give me give me ownership over your Ferrari, along with the keys to it, while the other guy is holding a shotgun to your face, isn't that voluntary as well?

I mean, I haven't threatened you.

And I'm NOT the one holding a gun to your head. That party is completely silent.

How is this not a voluntary contract between two private parties?

Did I coerce you? No.

Did I threaten you that I'd shoot you in the face with the shotgun I don't have? No.

The contract should be binding by your logic, mister libertarian.

originally posted by: Chiftel
a reply to: ketsuko

What about the raw materials? Do I own them by default retroactively as well just because I used them?

So it's okay for me to take 'your' steel from you in order to make a swing?

Also, what about stuff I build together with other people?

Who owns what, how much?

Or stuff I build or make for my employer? Don't I own that as well, by your definition?

Or how about stuff I didn't contribute one iota towards making but buy with money I or someone else (a banker) conjured up out of thin air?

Also, how can I own land? No one made that. So how was the first link in the chain of title of land legitimate and not simply theft from the commons (common/joint property of the whole human race)?

Who made the raw materials I might have used to make my stuff? Who owns that and who doesn't?

Why not?

Which human made the earth? Who are his/her progeny?

Why should his/her progeny own the earth, if he/she is no longer (died, departed to another multiverse - whatever)? How do they own it? Collectively contemporaneously or consecutively individually/completely? Who owns what/how much/when?

Why should they be entitled to inherit their parent's earth?

What is the epistemological legitimacy/argument for the right of inheritance?

From where or what does it follow that you should be entitled to what your parents owned?

Explain.

Epistemologically.

No typical shallow right wing syllogisms and tautologies, pls. No sentimental 'arguments'.

Explain why I should be entitled to my father's property as I am not my father and he is no longer alive.

Does right of property survive your death that you can choose what should be done with it / to whom it goes after you've died?

Why? Why should this be so?

According to what/whom?

Again, no arbitrary declarative statements, pls.

Argue why you ought to own what you own.

Please be advised a priori, however, that this is a variation of David Hume's "is/ought problem" and thus unsolvable. You can not arrive by consistent argumentation at the conclusion that property ownership should exist rather than assume this conclusion a priori anymore than you can arrive at moral values.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Chiftel

Human nature is where even one person finds a way to take advantage of the system.

Oh, so now human nature is simply what you state it is? I see.

Is this what passes for arguing on the right?

Study the history of Jamestown colony. In the very beginning, they held all their possessions in common, and they abused that reality. No one thought of working to produce food for everyone. So everyone held a common share of a dwindling food supply. Pretty soon, everyone had a common share of nothing, and they almost all starved to death or died of disease.

In short, they took advantage of the common share, and it nearly killed them.

So, instead, someone should own property and receive the fruits of the labour of others, who don't own it?

Is that your solution?

What about when machines grow the food almost completely automatically, without any human intervention?

What about when most everything is done this way?

What do we do then?

Or when one person's work with machines and tools provides for the reasonable needs of thousands of other people? How can those other people have their needs met?

Should all 7 billion of us produce enough for 700 billion just so we can afford to consume one 100th of what we produce or starve?

Who buys the excess 99% of production? Who do we sell it for? How will they pay? With what?

I'd say we worry about miracle machines if and when they arrive. For the nonce, they are but a fantasy. The machines will be maintained and built and programmed with raw materials taken and refined and made into usable substrate. Such miracle machines will not eliminate economy or work but will just change it as every technological development has done before it. When and if we get to the point that everything is done for us at all levels for any reason, then we will either be a race of useless blobs who can't do a thing for themselves or some sort of transcendent being--neither is likely to happen.

Raw materials are owned by those who but them or mine them or refine them and are usually owned by several different people throughout the process--free exchange of goods. You take "her" steel to make a swing and you are a thief just like if I came and took your swing away from you. Just because you want something for nothing does not justify theft.

The stuff you build with other people is up to whatever agreement you made with the other people when you decided to build the stuff in question. Some people may want to own part of that "stuff," some may not but the others needed his skills to build it so they gave him other stuff in exchange for his labor to build the stuff they wanted. Some may want the other people to help him build stuff that he wanted in exchange for building the stuff they wanted. "Ownership" is whatever was negotiated in the beginning. They guy who does more work is going to want more of the result be it ownership of the stuff, or more amount of other stuff, or more time dedicated to the stuff he wants. Free exchange of goods and services in a mutually beneficial manner.

What was the contract with your employer. A lot of employees are given a piece of the company or "the stuff" they make in exchange for their labor--when you get paid in stock, you own a piece of the company (and no, it's not just for white collar workers, many companies also offer stock to loyal laborers as well). On thee other hand, you employer just wants a commodity you have--your labor--and you sell him that commodity he needs for what you need--money to buy other stuff that you want. You may not need to own a million toilets, but you may work in a factory making toilets to earn the wherewithal to purchase something you do need, like toilet brushes.

Of course my children should be able to inherit my possessions after I die if I will it. What gives you, or anyone else the right to make that decision for me? Why should that be so? According to whom? (Actually I know whom--those who don't like working for their own stuff but want to take other people's stuff.)

What is more morally bankrupt? Keep what you earned or wanting to take from someone else something that you did not earn yourself?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
In addition, your comment actually contradicts yourself--"VIP quarters?" I thought all were equal in the communist future: there should be no VIPs.

from other cultures, ambassadors, and such.
Not all the cultures in that show have the same economic system. The feringi being prime example.
Also, you tend to give the nicest quarters to visitors, not just because of their standing either, its just proper etiquette.

Navy Doc, you're simply telling me how you believe things are or will be. I would dispute even this, what you believe about how things are now and how things will be in the future. However, this is beyond the scope of my original questions.

You're saying precious nothing about why they SHOULD be as you believe them to be now or to be in the future.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Actually no. Quarters are divided up by rank. I had the official enterprise blueprints as a kid.

There were no “official blueprints”, I know this because I tried to search them up once for a project I was doing for a friends hobby shop. Most of the existing blueprints would not properly fit into the ship, and were guesses by various companies based on how a navy ship works.

Also in the show the quarters were all the same, most likely they only used one set and changed the props in the rooms.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It makes sense--if everyone had a apartment on the ship, it would have been huge and there would have been no room for other stuff.

Starting with Next Generation this was the case, which is why whole families were on the ship. The majority of the saucer section was quarters for the crew, which is why they were constantly separating it in the first season of the show. As the show went on, they sort of moved away from that whole aspect of the story though.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Even in the "Communist ideals" in native tribes and monasteries, you still had hierarchies--you had the elders, you had the chief, you had the abbot. Because human beings are not insects and all have different skill levels, perceived needs, wants, talents, desires, intellect, "true" communism is not possible

Yes, you do have a hierarchy, but you earn that through your work. That does not mean that you have an economic advantage over others though. Communism does not mean that everyone is equal, it means that common goods are equally shared. If you work you eat, it doesn't matter if your the guy who runs the country or the one that cleans the floors. You both work, and you are both entitled to the basics of living.