Poor and Homelessness

[PruePhillip]

So is cooperation, actually. And so is parasitism. The good thing about being human is that we are able to rise above our dumb Darwinian animal selves, and choose cooperation over parasitism and competition. In fact, it is this ability to transcend our dumb animal nature that defines us as being human and gives us dominion over the natural world.

And 'overcoming' does not mean eliminating. It just means taking control of and responsibility for our selfish, competitive natures so that their expression doesn't cause ourselves and each other unnecessary harm. After all, competition is an enormous waste of time and resources that generates winners and losers based mostly on exploitation, rather than serving everyone well and equally.

So we have two football teams. How do they play the game without competition? If one team scores a goal does the other get a goal as well?
Two girls vying for the one guy, do they both get him?
Two auto companies want your sale, one is Toyota and the other Russian Lada - do you buy the Lada if someone before you buys the Toyota?
One super smart student gets 100% and the rest average 75% - do we take marks off the smart guy and share them?
One guy keeps his house neat and trim, his neighbor's house is neglected - the comparison looks bad so should the busy guy give half his time to help?
Two siblings are having a race, should we tell them competition is Darwinian and dumb?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would sooner poverty be eradicated altogether. But I would argue that a society which venerates the pursuit of money and property above all other values, is a greatly impoverished culture.

I'm still flabbergasted to this day that we cannot eradicate poverty and homelessness in a supposed first world modern day country.

 

[PureX]

So we have two football teams. How do they play the game without competition?

We don't have two football teams. We have one. And we can "play" at anything they like, however we like. But when it comes to doing all those things that we humans need to do to survive and thrive as a species, cooperation beats competition hands down! It's way more efficient and way more effective. And the results are way more equitable.

 

[PruePhillip]

That's not what it means to reduce intra-societal competition. What you list is allowable competition. But when that gets extended into every facet of existence (think keeping up with the Jones'), it foments division. The economy shouldn't be a competition; at least not at the individual/personal level.

So someone offers the Abba band ONE BILLION DOLLARS to go on tour again.
And most singers work for coffee money. How do you propose we end this inequality?

 

[PruePhillip]

We don't have two football teams. We have one. And we can "play" at anything they like, however we like. But when it comes to doing all those things that we humans need to do to survive and thrive as a species, cooperation beats competition hands down! It's way more efficient and way more effective. And the results are way more equitable.

In Communist societies there is no competition. Someone told me in Russia you couldn't get a meal at 6 o'clock as the restaurant staff were having their meal break. And if you didn't like the food then too bad - tell the govt.. A competing, capitalist restaurant will do everything to keep its customers happy.
And remember the Concorde jet? Russia built their own (stealing the tech too) but Aeroflot airlines had to charge $40 for flights because there's no such thing as first or second class in Communist Russia - the airline company had to suspend their Concordski as it was ruining them.

Do you think anyone is going to watch football or baseball where there is no competition? I know you wouldn't.

 

[PureX]

I'm still flabbergasted to this day that we cannot eradicate poverty and homelessness in a supposed first world modern day country.

We can.

We just won't do it. Because we're scared.

The instant we see someone having more of anything than we think they need, we become afraid that we're going to be left without. So then we start hoarding, ourselves (even if they were not). And then the next person sees us hoarding, and becomes afraid, and so they start hoarding, too. And soon everyone is afraid of everyone else's hoarding, and of being left without. Which is now a legitimate fear created by a bad response to an illegitimate fear. We live in a world controlled by greed and competition because we responded to the greed and competition in others with greed and competition of our own. And it multiplied to the point that we don't know how to stop it, now.

 

[PureX]

In Communist societies there is no competition.

There are no communist societies, except a few very primitive clans living deep in a jungle, somewhere. And maybe a few aged hippies somewhere in California. What you are calling "communist societies" are totalitarian dictatorships falsely calling themselves "communist" so they can pretend to the world and to their own people that they are not totalitarian dictatorships. Because we all know that totalitarian dictatorships suck for everyone but the dictators.

Also, I have to point out to you that corruption will destroy ANY form of government that we humans can devise. And it will destroy every form of government intent on curtailing it, if it's able. Corruption is the result of greed. Which is the result of hoarding resources, and the fear generated in everyone else as the result of someone hoarding resources.

 

[The Hammer]

So someone offers the Abba band ONE BILLION DOLLARS to go on tour again.
And most singers work for coffee money. How do you propose we end this inequality?

We can't. Our society is built on it (capitalism). Doesn't mean it's right or good.

 

[PureX]

So someone offers the Abba band ONE BILLION DOLLARS to go on tour again.
And most singers work for coffee money. How do you propose we end this inequality?

That's easy. You tax ABBA's billion $ income, and use the money to support the struggling artists. Same way you tax the billion $ profits of the MegaCrappyFood Corp. and use the money to provide food stamps for the poor. Or you tax the billion $ profits of the MegaGreedyDrug Corp. and use the money to cover the cost of medications for the poor. And so on.

The only thing stopping us from doing any of this is that all those billion $ corporations and billionaires can and do bribe all our politicians to give them big tax cuts, instead of making them pay what they should be paying. So there's no money coming in to take care of the poor, or support the arts, or rebuild infrastructure.

The main problem is the corruption. And the main cause of all that corruption is capitalism, which encourages and enables huge piles of money to build up in the hands of small groups of unscrupulous people. And they then use that money to bribe the government to help them get even more money. And the greed never stops because greed cannot be satiated.

 

[MikeF]

That's easy. You tax ABBA's billion $ income, and use the money to support the struggling artists. Same way you tax the billion $ profits of the MegaCrappyFood Corp. and use the money to provide food stamps for the poor. Or you tax the billion $ profits of the MegaGreedyDrug Corp. and use the money to cover the cost of medications for the poor. And so on.

The only thing stopping us from doing any of this is that all those billion $ corporations and billionaires can and do bribe all our politicians to give them big tax cuts, instead of making them pay what they should be paying. So there's no money coming in to take care of the poor, or support the arts, or rebuild infrastructure.

The main problem is the corruption. And the main cause of all that corruption is capitalism, which encourages and enables huge piles of money to build up in the hands of small groups of unscrupulous people. And they then use that money to bribe the government to help them get even more money. And the greed never stops because greed cannot be satiated.

Why in heaven's name should we give money away to struggling artists?

 

[PureX]

Why in heaven's name should we give money away to struggling artists?

Because art is how we see ourselves for what we are, instead of what we think we are. It's one of the most important services a human being can provide his society. It's why the artists are the first people the fascists and tyrants want to silence and forcibly co-opt when they try to rise to power. A society without a healthy community of artists is a society of the blind and easily self-deluded.

 

[MikeF]

Because art is how we see ourselves for what we are, instead of what we think we are. It's one of the most important services a human being can provide his society. It's why the artists are the first people the fascists and tyrants want to silence and forcibly co-opt when they try to rise to power. A society without a healthy community of artists is a society of the blind and easily self-deluded.

Who gets to choose which self-proclaimed struggling artist is worthy of support? Or is simply anyone and everyone able to get funding?

Not subsidizing a self-proclaimed artist is not censorship. They are free to make all the art, music, literature they want. If there is interest in what they create, they may be able to make a living at it. There is no constitutional right to be a self-proclaimed artist supported by government funding.

 

[PruePhillip]

That's easy. You tax ABBA's billion $ income, and use the money to support the struggling artists. Same way you tax the billion $ profits of the MegaCrappyFood Corp. and use the money to provide food stamps for the poor. Or you tax the billion $ profits of the MegaGreedyDrug Corp. and use the money to cover the cost of medications for the poor. And so on.

The only thing stopping us from doing any of this is that all those billion $ corporations and billionaires can and do bribe all our politicians to give them big tax cuts, instead of making them pay what they should be paying. So there's no money coming in to take care of the poor, or support the arts, or rebuild infrastructure.

The main problem is the corruption. And the main cause of all that corruption is capitalism, which encourages and enables huge piles of money to build up in the hands of small groups of unscrupulous people. And they then use that money to bribe the government to help them get even more money. And the greed never stops because greed cannot be satiated.

This billion dollar BTW was for real, but Abba rejected it. Just Googled this - the tax rate back in the 1990's in Sweden was 61.4% in the 1990's.
So Abba paid $6 in every $10 tax.
And yet Abba is still rich - how do we stop this? 99% tax? What if they are STILL rich then?
How much of this reached other singers?
Do you think this Abba Tax ought to have also gone on fixing roads, funding hospitals etc and not just singers?
If I put my hand out for Abba tax, claiming I want to be a singer too, should I get some of that money?
Wouldn't it just be better if instead of everybody buying, ie the Arrival album. we instead force people to buy every other single by every other wanna be singer in a lottery style? So if there's a 1,000 would be singers in Sweden then there's one chance in a thousand you get an Abba record?

Now these fab four are quite good looking. Wouldn't it be fair if they traded places with less nice looking, less good singing people in their band?
You see what this loopy 'equality of outcomes' looks when you try to put it into practice? Not even taxes is going to 'fix' that.

 

[PruePhillip]

There are no communist societies, except a few very primitive clans living deep in a jungle, somewhere. And maybe a few aged hippies somewhere in California. What you are calling "communist societies" are totalitarian dictatorships falsely calling themselves "communist" so they can pretend to the world and to their own people that they are not totalitarian dictatorships. Because we all know that totalitarian dictatorships suck for everyone but the dictators.

Also, I have to point out to you that corruption will destroy ANY form of government that we humans can devise. And it will destroy every form of government intent on curtailing it, if it's able. Corruption is the result of greed. Which is the result of hoarding resources, and the fear generated in everyone else as the result of someone hoarding resources.

Sure, but corruption exists on a scale. Western nations do better at limiting corruption than most third world nations.
Transparency, limiting periods in office, having community oversight, transparency of government etc limit the growth of corruption.
Compare that to nations like Afghanistan or Russia.

But Communism has to be judged by what it DOES, not what its claims are. And Communism, wherever it ruled, did not end in corruption but began in corruption. For instance much was made of 'corruption' in the Sth Viet government pre 1975 by the Western Left - ignoring the fact that Communism was corrupt to its very foundational charter and ideology, ie the believe that it's not enough just to steal from you, Communism owns both your etire property, and your life and freedom.

 

[Valjean]

I'm still flabbergasted to this day that we cannot eradicate poverty and homelessness in a supposed first world modern day country.

What incentive do those in power have to do so? There's no money in it.
Isn't capitalism a zero sum game?

 

[Valjean]

In Communist societies there is no competition. Someone told me in Russia you couldn't get a meal at 6 o'clock as the restaurant staff were having their meal break. And if you didn't like the food then too bad - tell the govt.. A competing, capitalist restaurant will do everything to keep its customers happy.
And remember the Concorde jet? Russia built their own (stealing the tech too) but Aeroflot airlines had to charge $40 for flights because there's no such thing as first or second class in Communist Russia - the airline company had to suspend their Concordski as it was ruining them.

Do you think anyone is going to watch football or baseball where there is no competition? I know you wouldn't.

What's Russia have to do with a communist society? Russia's as much a capitalist oligarchy as the US is.

 

[Valjean]

But Communism has to be judged by what it DOES, not what its claims are. And Communism, wherever it ruled, did not end in corruption but began in corruption. For instance much was made of 'corruption' in the Sth Viet government pre 1975 by the Western Left - ignoring the fact that Communism was corrupt to its very foundational charter and ideology, ie the believe that it's not enough just to steal from you, Communism owns both your etire property, and your life and freedom.

What examples do you have of this oppressive communism?

 

[PureX]

Who gets to choose which self-proclaimed struggling artist is worthy of support? Or is simply anyone and everyone able to get funding?

Not subsidizing a self-proclaimed artist is not censorship. They are free to make all the art, music, literature they want. If there is interest in what they create, they may be able to make a living at it. There is no constitutional right to be a self-proclaimed artist supported by government funding.

There is no constitutional right to drive motor vehicles, or to have roads to drive them on, either. Yet we all can agree that, within reason, and with proper oversight, this is a right people should have, as it serves the well-being of everyone. Same goes for health care, education, emergency services, and so on. None of these are guaranteed by the Constitution, but are deemed good and necessary services to the public, worthy of support via taxation.

It's easy to support the arts, it could be as simple as supporting institutions that foster and present art to the public, like art schools and art galleries. Or by supporting grant committees. Corporations seem to be able to figure out how to support the arts when they feel so inclined, so I see no reason the government should have any special difficulty doing it.

 

[PureX]

This billion dollar BTW was for real, but Abba rejected it. Just Googled this - the tax rate back in the 1990's in Sweden was 61.4% in the 1990's.
So Abba paid $6 in every $10 tax.
And yet Abba is still rich - how do we stop this? 99% tax? What if they are STILL rich then?
How much of this reached other singers?
Do you think this Abba Tax ought to have also gone on fixing roads, funding hospitals etc and not just singers?
If I put my hand out for Abba tax, claiming I want to be a singer too, should I get some of that money?
Wouldn't it just be better if instead of everybody buying, ie the Arrival album. we instead force people to buy every other single by every other wanna be singer in a lottery style? So if there's a 1,000 would be singers in Sweden then there's one chance in a thousand you get an Abba record?

Now these fab four are quite good looking. Wouldn't it be fair if they traded places with less nice looking, less good singing people in their band?
You see what this loopy 'equality of outcomes' looks when you try to put it into practice? Not even taxes is going to 'fix' that.

It's amusing to see how hard you are trying to make this appear complex and difficult, when its not complicated or difficult at all.

It's not about stopping anyone from becoming rich. It's about stopping people and corporations from becoming absurdly, and unjustly rich. And then using that excess wealth to corrupt the system to gain even more power and money, at the expense of everyone else. To achieve that would only require a progressive tax rate such that the more money one takes in, the more tax one pays out. And how that money is then spent back into the economy is a job for the government. It's what governments are for. But it's then our job to make sure our governments are not being corrupted, so that the tax money is being spent back into the low end of the economy, and not just being handed back to the already rich in return for bribes and kickbacks.

 

[PureX]

Sure, but corruption exists on a scale. Western nations do better at limiting corruption than most third world nations.
Transparency, limiting periods in office, having community oversight, transparency of government etc limit the growth of corruption.
Compare that to nations like Afghanistan or Russia.

But Communism has to be judged by what it DOES, not what its claims are. And Communism, wherever it ruled, did not end in corruption but began in corruption. For instance much was made of 'corruption' in the Sth Viet government pre 1975 by the Western Left - ignoring the fact that Communism was corrupt to its very foundational charter and ideology, ie the believe that it's not enough just to steal from you, Communism owns both your etire property, and your life and freedom.

Corruption is winning across the board. Excusing it by saying our corruption is better than their corruption is just stupid. Or saying that our corrupt system is destroying fewer lives than their corrupt system. That's insane! Obviously the solution is not to suipport "better corruption", but to stop the corruption.

It's all about control. Who wants it, and who has it, and by what methods they maintain it. Either by controlling the flow of necessary goods, or by threat of physical violence, the result is the same. Unjust control. And neither of these methods of forced control is "better" than the other. They both need to be stopped. The socioeconomic control needs to be spread out, and shared equally by everyone effected. It's the only way to limit the greed and abuse. So the question is what nation is doing this most effectively, right now, and how can we emulate and improve upon their system? At this moment in history that would appear to be the socialist democratic countries of northern Europe. And it's working because they are not stopping anyone from becoming wealthy, yet they are taxing that accumulation of wealth significantly, and then spending that money back into their economies in ways that significantly improves the lives of their citizens. And they are able to do this because they give their citizens a lot of control over their business and economic decisions. That shared control leads to a more healthy and secure society.