Whedon: Comic-Con Capitalism & Socialism

[davidhayes1956]

So, when people's generosity becomes law (by the will of the people and the vote of the people) does it become socialism? It dawned on me last night that democracy and capitalism don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. If enough people were poor and without hope of being anything but poor, they would then become the majority. They could decide by vote to cap wealth at $5 million or whatever figure they chose and the rest would be siphoned off and distributed by the government (which is by the people and of the people). So, for capitalism to be insured, democracy would have to be replaced by a system by which those who had acquired the most through capitalism would be in control.

[Mistermoonlight]

Each of us is more important than we'd ever dare to dream. We are bigger than the limitations we give ourselves, or allow others to suggest.

Like it or not, we are one world, one people, and in the grand scheme of things, that means everything or nothing, depending on your beliefs. I choose the former.

I say thank goodness there is a world where a Stephen Hawking can survive, thanks to the vision of those who provide a safety net for the afflicted.

I've seen how big we can be.



Ideas don't hurt me. I consider it my life's duty to inspire hope rather than fear.

I think Joss does, too.

[SoCal]

Naivete will be the death of do-gooders.

Still waiting to see hand-holding and government hand-outs appeasing radicals in the middle east who want to kill us.

In the almost 50 years of "The Great Society," (Medicare, Medicaid and increased spending on "the poor"), poverty and the breakdown of the family has increased exponentially.

When you pay people not to work, they won't look for work.

And when you take the money I've earned with MY hard work and give to others who won't work....I consider it state sponsered theft.

[Mistermoonlight]

Jul 19, 2012 13:17:34 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Naivete will be the death of do-gooders.

Still waiting to see hand-holding and government hand-outs appeasing radicals in the middle east who want to kill us.

In the almost 50 years of "The Great Society," (Medicare, Medicaid and increased spending on "the poor"), poverty and the breakdown of the family has increased exponentially.

When you pay people not to work, they won't look for work.

And when you take the money I've earned with MY hard work and give to others who won't work....I consider it state sponsered theft.

Thank you. You've put me in the best company I could ever ask to be in.

[davidhayes1956]

We have had welfare and medicare and increased spending on the poor. If those were the only things going on and poverty still increased, that may be an indication of the programs not working. Unfortunately, we can't try it both ways and do a fair comparison. During the same times we had programs for the poor, we didn't regulate banks and financiers in a way to keep them from scamming billions of dollars and robbing pensions -- leaving people who worked hard for decades to depend upon medicare and welfare. So the forces that create continued poverty still exist.

And here is something no one wants to face. Increased technology replaces the need for people to do the work to provide for our basic needs. What happens then? One thing is the explosion of the entertainment industry. People used to amuse themselves. Now we have full time paid professionals doing nothing but work to amuse people. That created a lot of jobs that has nothing to do with basic survival. Then we increased the importance of fashion so that people have more clothes than they need and get rid of them before they are used because they aren't fashionable anymore. We have industries like the video gaming industry that employ people but has nothing to do with keeping people alive or advancing civilization. But what happens when technology eliminates most of the jobs? Do we take away people's reproductive freedoms so they can't have any more kids than the work force can handle? Or do we only allow people to hold jobs that test out as the best to do those jobs and not allow the rest of the people not to work. If we don't feed those that aren't allowed to work, they will probably riot and steal and destroy the machines that take care of those that are allowed the privilege of working. If we don't decide to put them into cold storage or kill them, the choice is to house and feed them. Who pays? At that point, the concept of paying for the basics may be outmoded. The machines just spew out the necessities. The people who do work might consider being allowed to work their incentive for doing it (and isn't that the kind of person we want doing the work anyway? One who loves what they do and takes pride in it rather than hating it and doing as little as possible and not caring about quality because they only do it for a paycheck. Sure, people that do more for the society should be rewarded for what they do, whether it be a pat on the back or a pile of money. But if we are going to get to a future where there are no jobs, we have to find a way to transition into it. So, what do we do with people that won't work or can't work or have such poor skills that they shouldn't work? A kind and prosperous society would establish at least a minimum standard of living for those people. A strictly money focused society would kill them and use their bodies as fertilizer. Our solution to the problem will be what tells others what kind of people we are.

[SoCal]

"If we don't feed those that aren't allowed to work, they will probably riot and steal and destroy the machines that take care of those that are allowed the privilege of working."

Are you freaking kidding? So I should work my ass off, not for my own benefit, but to keep people who won't or can't work from rioting and perhaps harming me?

That sounds a lot like blackmail.....you work and what you earn will be taken by a government entity to be given out to people who haven't earned it, otherwise you'll go to jail or the people you support with your taxes will kill you.

F---ing blackmail. And the last time I looked, that was illegal.

And you have to show me just WHO is NOT being ALLOWED to work. That's BS

[SoCal]

Jul 19, 2012 13:58:09 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

Jul 19, 2012 13:17:34 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Thank you. You've put me in the best company I could ever ask to be in.

[davidhayes1956]

Jul 19, 2012 17:26:15 GMT -5 SoCal said:

"If we don't feed those that aren't allowed to work, they will probably riot and steal and destroy the machines that take care of those that are allowed the privilege of working."

Are you freaking kidding? So I should work my ass off, not for my own benefit, but to keep people who won't or can't work from rioting and perhaps harming me?

That sounds a lot like blackmail.....you work and what you earn will be taken by a government entity to be given out to people who haven't earned it, otherwise you'll go to jail or the people you support with your taxes will kill you.

F---ing blackmail. And the last time I looked, that was illegal.

And you have to show me just WHO is NOT being ALLOWED to work. That's BS

You mean you don't believe that there aren't thousands or millions of people right now that are out of work and applying for jobs they want to do and no jobs for them? Do you think everyone without a job wants to be without a job? So If one person can produce enough product to supply hundreds thanks to machines developed through the accumulated knowledge of mankind, there is not a fraction of the abundance created that should be used to support those without work or unable to work? What an individual pays in taxes wouldn't go very far if that person had to pay a share everything that they get without cost. A person doesn't reach an age when they can work full time without having usually 13 or more years of education. People may think that their property taxes pay the entire bill, but it was also paid by previous generations and taxation is one way that it is paid back.

As to people stealing to feed themselves, what are they supposed to do if no one gives them work or enough work or enough compensation for food or rent? If there is no system to support those who aren't working, how are they supposed to survive? ... or aren't they? If someone robbed you of everything you had and injured you so you couldn't work, the system may arrest that person ... but the system doesn't replace what was stolen or cure your injuries ... and the people who do the damages usually wouldn't have the money to pay for what they did if they were sued. So, you become broke and unable to work. Are you supposed to die? Are your dependents supposed to die too? Should your children be sent to factories and put to work as they were before child labor laws? What if you are 70 years old and have worked 50 years and your savings were wiped out due to identity theft? Should you be required to report to someplace to be put to sleep? The largest group of people in poverty in the US are children. Should they also be put to sleep if their parents can't support them? The country leases oil rights and land to generate wealth and fuel the economy. Shouldn't we have first been able to achieve the milestone of making sure everyone has food before we devote the resources we have to making ever bigger TV sets and other luxury devices? We get the luxuries so cheaply that we don't appreciate them. Without taxes and regulations, they would be drastically cheaper and less appreciated and the basics we need to survive would be less available to people without advantages. We'd burn through all that we need to survive into the next century because we don't care about the next century ... that's someone else's problem.

When Marie Antoinette was told the poor had no bread to eat, she said, "Let them eat cake." But they didn't have cake either. It's easy to say "Let them get a job" or "Let the politicians create a job" without any appreciation of the lack of work in some areas. In communist USSR, they made jobs so people could work -- washing outside walls and all kinds of things that didn't need done ... and the money that paid them came out of the public treasury. It was just going through the motions of making it look like there was work to do. We have infrastructure to rebuild, but if the government had it done, they would have to raise taxes or borrow money to do it. We would never know how much would be saved in damn collapses that didn't happen and buildings that didn't explode from rusty pipelines. The public wouldn't see a thing except interruptions in traffic and the taxes coming out of their paychecks. Politicians voting for this kind of work get voted out. Still it wouldn't generate enough work ... especially for those who can't do construction jobs. Should we ban back hoes so 20 people can do in a week what one man can do in an afternoon?

So, what do we do with the poor if we don't help them survive and we don't help them die and we can't put them to work?

[davidhayes1956]

I don't know many people that could afford to have a heart transplant if they found out that they needed one. I think of insurance companies as voluntary socialist groups. Many people contribute to a fund and only the ones that need it pull money out. "From each according to their gifts, to each according to their need." Their gifts in this case would be good health. The best of these companies don't try to collect any more than what they need to pay those collect, manage and disperse the funds. Surpluses are invested for future distributions. People don't expect to get back all they put into it but may get back more than they put it ... based upon circumstance. Things got tougher when people decided to save money by waiting until they are more likely to get sick before they contribute. I didn't take the chance. And companies used to require all their employees to participate. The company contributed because they didn't want to lose key employees due to health issues -- they invested in their employees' health and the payoff was not having to re-train replacements. The problem comes when people gamble by not getting health insurance and lose. Then they either run into medical bills that bankrupt them or turn to the government to pick up the cost of their failed gamble. If the government steps in, then people know that they will and opt out of insurance so they aren't 'chumps' that pay when they could spend their money on less vital things and get bailed out. So, it makes more sense to have everyone in the pool for a smaller amount and no one gets bailed out. It's fair and reasonable. The only part that isn't fair is that people who exercise and diet and don't smoke or participate in risky activities pay the same as people who live risky lives. That issue should be addressed either by premium differences or using the taxes on cigarettes for health care or by similar measures.

Today I checked the prices on iron pills at a few different places before I bought a bottle of 100 pills ... only to find a bottle of 180 pills for the same price at another store. That's the free market for you. I don't know whether one company takes more profit or is just that much less efficient at producing the pills. There is still an easy way to get an 80% return on your money ... smart shopping. But I can foresee a day when prices/quality can be compared immediately and companies with higher prices have to find a way to be competitive immediately or go out of business.

[SoCal]

The quote "Let them eat cake" was most probably never said by Marie Antointette. But of course it always makes a great talking point.

Royalty is a stupid form of government. People who consider themselves God's appointed ruler of nations are morons. I do not like royalty. Even royalty that currently parades around in fancy cars and have lavish weddings and get their pictures taken opening theaters and attending the races.

Are there those out there looking for jobs who can't find them? Yes....twas ever thus. But you cannot deny the tens of thousands who choose not to work because they get government (taxpayer funded) welfare.

And just because you can't find a job in your chosen field, doesn't mean there aren't jobs out there. I see lots of ads in the newspaper everyday.....looking for employees. Are you trying to tell me these ads are phony?

And again, I cannot say it enough, if you forcibly take the money I've earned and give it to someone else, that is no better than stealing. If I CHOOSE to give a portion of my earning to charity to help those less fortunate, that is my choice and not the government's right.

[SoCal]

Even in the 60's, wild radicals like the Beatles understood that a government could take everything away from them.



"BE THANKFUL I DON'T TAKE IT ALL"

[davidhayes1956]

A lot of ads ARE phony. Some companies have budgets for advertising for new employees and the departments that have those budgets use their budget rather than use it. Companies stockpile resumes for jobs they don't have in case someone they employ quit. Many jobs get filled before the ad hits the paper. Some companies have to advertise even when they have a candidate they intend to hire already. And just because an ad is there, doesn't mean that there aren't 20 or 100 people in line for that same job ... or that the employer isn't going to interview for months looking for the right person. Plus, the ways the laws are written, if you refuse a job that pays a lot less than what you had been paid, you can get assistance, but once you accept a job that is much less (perhaps not even a living wage) you have established a new low that you have to earn less than to qualify for help.

Looking for work outside your field is fine if an employer is willing to hire someone with no experience or training for the job they are applying for. Why should they when there are people trained and with experience looking for work? The only answer to that would be to pay less than the work is work or because the job is something that no one in their right mind would want to do.

It sounds like you don't believe that if the majority vote to lend assistance to people and you don't want to, that is someone stealing from you. So what is the alternative to democracy or any other government that taxes it's people? Anarchy? I think that anyone doesn't want to pay taxes shouldn't have to pay them. Instead, they should pay for the things they get at a price not subsidized by government. Sure everything the government has or built was paid for by people's taxes or by money the government borrowed, but that is money other people were taxed for willing or not, so any person benefits by a lot of little contributions of thousands of people they don't know. Try getting to work without using a road or crossing a road. Try getting through a week without purified water. The stupidity of wages is that we get them only to be told to give them back. If we had an account saying how much the government had paid for our education and support until the point that we can work, we would be better able to see that, in most cases, we aren't paying it forward to help others, we are paying back a debt we owe ... paying for the fact that we aren't in a jungle having to negotiate the right to get past or around every other human we meet.

[SoCal]

Jul 20, 2012 17:23:41 GMT -5 @davidhayes1956 said:

The stupidity of wages is that we get them only to be told to give them back. If we had an account saying how much the government had paid for our education and support until the point that we can work, we would be better able to see that, in most cases, we aren't paying it forward to help others, we are paying back a debt we owe ... paying for the fact that we aren't in a jungle having to negotiate the right to get past or around every other human we meet.

Please tell me you're not serious. "Wages" are stupid? The government never paid for my education. I went to Catholic schools. So my father, who was the breadwinner, paid state taxes for an education I did not use and paid tuition at the schools I attended. And the teachers in those public schools are paid by taxpayers. Everytime you use the word "government" you should be using the word "taxpayer" because we are the ones supplying the money for these institutions.

The only debt owed is by the government for wasting the money they take from us, overspending on useless programs and running up a debt so high that the nation's credit is in the toilet.

As for negotiating a jungle, it is up to individual states, with the consent of the inhabitants, to decide which programs they want to provide and pay taxes for. That is not the role of the federal government.

[Aeryn]

Jul 17, 2012 19:37:49 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Hey Joss -- remember these?

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

KARL MARX, The Criticism of the Gotha Program

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto

I do not like money, money is the reason we fight.

KARL MARX

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

KARL MARX, Criticism of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right"

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto



So Joss, just how much of your freely created wealth are you willing to give up? I would not ask it of you, but a socialist would demand it of you.

[SoCal]

[davidhayes1956]

I think it is stupid for the wages to be given then taken back. Why the exchange? The wages you get should be what you end up with after everything else is figured out. You go to your bank and what gets deposited is what's left after your mortgage/rent, health insurance, car payment, pension contribution, etc, etc ... is taken into consideration. Why give the illusion that you have a handful of money when that money is already committed for other things?

If I should say "taxpayer" when I say the government paid for something, should you then blame the taxpayers for the problems instead of the government, because the the taxpayers are still the voting majority in this country.

The Catholic school you went to could not have existed if there wasn't a government. That was a choice made to go to that school, you had an option available. And the value of educating others is beyond paying just for the children you bring into the world and yourself. You count on the people you interact with to have a certain level of education so you can communicate and get the work that is done for you done with at least some level of intelligence. The investment comes back in a way that is nearly impossible to calculate. The GI Bill was originally put in place just to get soldiers returning from war a place to go because there weren't enough jobs for them. A few years later, the number of well-educated professionals re-entering the work force gave the economy a boost that wasn't anticipated. There is no way to separate out the impact that our government has made on our lives. We can't see it how it is and how it would have been. I have serious issues with the way the government spends money. $200 billion for Afghanistan in the next 2 years when we already have seen that the money doesn't go for the uses we sent it there for. Withdrawing only a fraction of the money sent to Pakistan (not ALL of it) when we found out the aid money was used by them to build bombs to blow up Americans. How asinine! And I see who is getting a lot of the money in poverty programs in this country -- scam artists who should be awarded PhDs in working the system. But there are people who have worked hard that this country has not protected who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own and children whose only crime was being born to the wrong parents. The cost per taxpayer to help these people would be practically un-noticable. And if progress is to continue and machines keep eliminating the need for workers, we have to have a plan for the people put out of work. Do we pay people to get sterilized to reduce the population? Do we invent phony jobs that leach money out of the system in a less obvious manor? Do we establish a "voluntary" class of people who we house and feed just to get them out of the way? Do we tell Dr. Kevorkian that we were wrong and ask him to get back to work? Do we just cut off the people's support and letting them fend for themselves on the streets of America? Do we revoke their citizenship and deport them? Do we draft anyone out of work and send them to fight the next war? Whatever you decide, just remember that it is by the grace of God (or circumstance) that you aren't one of them. If you become one of them in the future, will you still think your solution is the correct one?

[Aeryn]

The problem is, there's too many fucking illegal immigrants here. And for some reason, most Democrats seem to think that it's okay for these border jumping assholes to remain in this country.

And why the fuck do we help other countries?! They'll burn our flag in a heartbeat, all the while screaming, "Death to America!" But they look to us when they need a handout.

[davidhayes1956]

What I don't understand about illegal immigrants is how I've heard that they drain our health care system. Why, when they show up at a hospital, aren't the treated and released ... back to where they came from? If they were a wanted murderer and came in for something, the police would be called (wouldn't they?) and the person hauled off to jail?

Any time a regular person comes in with an injury, they seem to always be ready to make an arrest ... asking if the person's spouse hurts them. "Oh, you aren't a victim of spousal abuse ... just some other kind of law breaker? Never mind. No insurance? Don't worry about it!"

[Aeryn]

They use emergency rooms as primary care...they'll bring their kids in too. And the hospitals are required to treat them. ERs are for trauma cases, not check ups, goddamn it.

If Romney needs a running mate, he should choose Jan Brewer. Love that chick!!

[Mistermoonlight]

Jul 20, 2012 19:38:43 GMT -5 Aeryn said:

The problem is, there's too many fucking illegal immigrants here. And for some reason, most Democrats seem to think that it's okay for these border jumping assholes to remain in this country.

And why the fuck do we help other countries?! They'll burn our flag in a heartbeat, all the while screaming, "Death to America!" But they look to us when they need a handout.

Where others choose fear, I choose hope.

Fear is important. On a primal level it keeps us alive. However, hope is where our dreams lie, and is what empowers us to be better than we ever thought we could be.

I'm reminded of one of my earliest memories as an American, learning what the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

I want a country as big as those ideals, not a smaller frightened one that seeks to build a Berlin Wall around itself.

[Aeryn]

You're an idealist, my friend. But I still love you.

[SoCal]

Jul 20, 2012 21:15:08 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

Jul 20, 2012 19:38:43 GMT -5 Aeryn said:

The problem is, there's too many fucking illegal immigrants here. And for some reason, most Democrats seem to think that it's okay for these border jumping assholes to remain in this country.

And why the fuck do we help other countries?! They'll burn our flag in a heartbeat, all the while screaming, "Death to America!" But they look to us when they need a handout.

Where others choose fear, I choose hope.

Fear is important. On a primal level it keeps us alive. However, hope is where our dreams lie, and is what empowers us to be better than we ever thought we could be.

I'm reminded of one of my earliest memories as an American, learning what the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

I want a country as big as those ideals, not a smaller frightened one that seeks to build a Berlin Wall around itself.

Lovely poem, but can you please remember that when the Statue of Liberty was put up we didn't have a welfare state. In the early 1900's people emigrating to the country had to prove that they had a family member already here who could support them.

Not having a socialist state isn't endorsing fear, it speaks to the strength of a country where everyone has the right to "pursue happiness," not a guarantee of success. I choose to hold on to those ideals of the founders of a country where the people run the government, not the government running the people.



“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” ¯ James Madison

[Mistermoonlight]

Jul 20, 2012 21:28:07 GMT -5 Aeryn said:

You're an idealist, my friend. But I still love you.

Thank you my friend, I love you too.

For everyone out there showing us danger there also needs to be someone showing us the stars.

We've both got work to do, right?

[SoCal]

Moon, there's always a place for idealism in the world, but it must be tempered with a firm grasp on the realities that would rip those freedoms from us.

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
John Adams
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

[Aeryn]

SoCal, if you quote one more dead politician I'm going to fucking scream.

[SoCal]

Jul 21, 2012 20:13:29 GMT -5 Aeryn said:

SoCal, if you quote one more dead politician I'm going to fucking scream.

runs to find more dead politicians to quote

[Mistermoonlight]

Jul 21, 2012 19:25:46 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Moon, there's always a place for idealism in the world, but it must be tempered with a firm grasp on the realities that would rip those freedoms from us.

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
John Adams
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

I can say that over the decades my outlook has gotten larger rather than smaller.

Dylan once said, "I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.'



The line 'fearing not I'd become my enemy, in the instant that I preach' is one I could stand to hear every day. I recognize that I have those tendencies within me, but, when I'm lucky, I realize that my true talents and nature lie elsewhere.

We all change over the years. The question we might ask is, are we changing in the direction we'd like?

[SoCal]

Isn't it wonderful that we live in a country where a Bob Dylan can write music and thrive.

He's lucky he was born here and not in Iran.

Only each individual can say whether the direction they are growing toward is right or wrong. In this republic we are free to grow, meander and take the whatever path we choose. Not so in a socialist society. There the government determines who you are and what you will become.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things."

[Aeryn]

Jul 21, 2012 21:35:33 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Jul 21, 2012 20:13:29 GMT -5 Aeryn said:

SoCal, if you quote one more dead politician I'm going to fucking scream.

runs to find more dead politicians to quote

I'm touched.

[davidhayes1956]

The wisdom of the founding fathers was that no one but white, landowning males should have the right to vote. Women had very limited property rights and slavery was still acceptable. At least they built in the flexibility for the system to be adapted to fit the times without the need for a revolution ... even though we did have one.