LAGC - Just for you

[Krupski]

http://www.kennethkuhn.com/writings/antisocialism


I particularly like this part:



• You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
• What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
• The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
• When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care
of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to
get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
• You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

[alismith]

He won't understand it; it makes too much sense.

[Goodman]

He won't understand it; it makes too much sense.
Besides that, it's wrong. Have thousands of links to prove it.

[ready]

Libtards like to say that things are "common sense" when they are not but when presented with actual common sense they don't understand it.

[Krupski]

This one is great:

A Fifty Dollar Lesson in Socialism

author unknown

I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows
up. She said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her,
'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?' She
replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed.

'Wow! What a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until
you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the
lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50.

Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs
out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the
eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work,
and you can just pay him the $50?'

I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

[LAGC]

Meh. Who needs wordy blogs or obscure urban legends when an ideology can be summarized in 12 short words:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

:naughty:

[Oswald Bastable]

He won't understand it; it makes too much sense.

Bingo!

[was_peacemaker]

Meh. Who needs wordy blogs or obscure urban legends when an ideology can be summarized in 12 short words:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

:naughty:

About every Marxist I have ever known likes to quote that, but they don't realize what its true meaning is. It is honestly saying if your smart enough to be a scientist then your abilities meet the needs of the state, and the state will take care or you in the same manner that, the state takes care of the janitor. It's also saying that one's ability should be focused so little to no progress for the janitor to progress in life beyond his ability. Why would he anyway? He gets the same treatment as the rocket scientist and the Olympian.

[LAGC]

About every Marxist I have ever known likes to quote that, but they don't realize what its true meaning is. It is honestly saying if your smart enough to be a scientist then your abilities meet the needs of the state, and the state will take care or you in the same manner that, the state takes care of the janitor. It's also saying that one's ability should be focused so little to no progress for the janitor to progress in life beyond his ability. Why would he anyway? He gets the same treatment as the rocket scientist and the Olympian.

Isn't it really not true though? I mean, when it boils right down to it, is the scientist really more important than the worker toiling in the fields to help put food on the supermarket shelves so that the scientist can come home and cook dinner and eat without having to go out and hunt/trap/forage food all the time? Or the janitor keeping things tidy and clean so that workers in the same building don't become sick from bacteria or mold growing in a toxic environment with garbage piling up everywhere?

We're all in this rat-race together. Division of labor exists so that we can all specialize in what we are good at, without having to perform all the many other jobs that allow us to efficiently do our own.

I'm not saying everyone necessarily has to be paid the same, but is the CEO of a company really worth 100 times the salary of the average worker who actually gets things done and produces profits for stockholders? Really?

Things that make you go "Hmm..."

[was_peacemaker]

Isn't it really not true though? I mean, when it boils right down to it, is the scientist really more important than the worker toiling in the fields to help put food on the supermarket shelves so that the scientist can come home and cook dinner and eat without having to go out and hunt/trap/forage food all the time? Or the janitor keeping things tidy and clean so that workers in the same building don't become sick from bacteria or mold growing in a toxic environment with garbage piling up everywhere?

We're all in this rat-race together. Division of labor exists so that we can all specialize in what we are good at, without having to perform all the many other jobs that allow us to efficiently do our own.

I'm not saying everyone necessarily has to be paid the same, but is the CEO of a company really worth 100 times the salary of the average worker who actually gets things done and produces profits for stockholders? Really?

Things that make you go "Hmm..."

I have worked a variety of jobs, good and bad. I can tell you there is a reason why a guy at FedEx loading trucks deserves more than a janitor sweeping floors. I have done both. I can tell you why a grocery stocker who has to keep up with product on the shelves, and unload heavy trucks deserves more than the guy who picks the produce. I have done both. I can tell you why a guy who lays down sub floors and hardwood floor and does carpentry deserves more than a dishwasher. I have done both. I can tell you why a educated person on guitars and bass who works in a music store deserves more than a guy who is a cashier. I have done both.

I can tell you why a guy unloading 3,000-5,000 tires by hand out of tractor trailers a day deserves more than a fast food worker. I have done both. I can also tell you why as a musician I don't play for less than $20 bucks an hour. Those who play know what I am talking about.

[LAGC]

Yet generally speaking: the more menial the labor, the lower you get paid.

But by utilizing technology to boost productivity, the average white-collared worker who sits at a desk with a computer gets paid much more than anyone doing most of those shit jobs you mentioned -- jobs that most Americans won't do any more, which is why immigrants are taking them over in droves.

Why should the paper-pusher in a cubicle be worth so much more than someone who busts ass each and every day doing actual physical work?

Just because "supply and demand" and the "invisible hand" of the free-market determine it to be so? Or because someone is better at kissing ass and climbing the corporate ladder versus those who are stuck doing the shit jobs?

So much food for thought...

[LAGC]

Is the Surgeon more important than the janitor. The janitor is responsible for cleaning the surgery suit and putting the bio contam in the solid holding. Others move the used instruments to decontam and sterile processing.

Perhaps you would like YOUR surgeon to go thru med school and take all the risks in a sue happy world while making the same as the housekeeping staff., but not me. I want my doctor rewarded and highly motivated.

We're one of the few First World countries where higher education isn't provided for free like it is with primary/secondary school. The very notion of students graduating college with six-digit student loan debt is unheard of throughout much of Europe. No wonder those who spend 8 years in college demand such high compensation, just to have any hope of paying those loans back.


As they used to say in the old soviet union, you pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.

Hey, who launched a satellite and man into orbit first? Certainly not "pretend" work there...


Is socialism will never work because most humans want to advance...we want better cars and better lives. If socialism gives everyone a new car, what happens when one person wears out their car faster? The state gives them a new model and soon everyone will want the same since it is unfair for any one to have something better.

I think it's more about equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. That's where many of the anti-socialist types get tripped up -- they assume everyone has to have the exact same shit, lest they be jealous. But there's nothing incompatible with using the free-market to allocate scarce resources and manage most of the minutiae of the general economy, while still providing a strong safety net for those who fall through the cracks.

[Krupski]

Meh. Who needs wordy blogs or obscure urban legends when an ideology can be summarized in 12 short words:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."



So, let's compare a doctor (the M.D. type) who is married but has no kids to a factory piece-worker who has 3 kids, one of which has a lifelong medical condition that costs a lot.

I'm sure you would agree that the doctor rates higher on the ABILITY scale, while the factory worker rates higher on the NEEDS scale.

Are you saying that the factory worker should "get" more than the doctor?

And, if so, where is "it" supposed to come from? Should the doctor give up part of his high (but earned and deserved) salary to help support the factory worker?

If so, WHY WOULD THE DOCTOR EVEN BOTHER TO BECOME A DOCTOR?

[5.56NATO]

The religion of marxism sounds good on paper but everywhere it's practised it proves that it frees men.
Frees them from their property.
Frees them from their freedom.
Frees them from their lives.

[was_peacemaker]

Yet generally speaking: the more menial the labor, the lower you get paid.

But by utilizing technology to boost productivity, the average white-collared worker who sits at a desk with a computer gets paid much more than anyone doing most of those shit jobs you mentioned -- jobs that most Americans won't do any more, which is why immigrants are taking them over in droves.


Thanks for you're elitism... by the way, none of the jobs I mentioned could be done by illegals, because all those jobs required the worker to be legally capable of working in the USA. I see your trying to dodge the issue and play word salad games by pushing your biased claims with your stance on why illegals should take over our county.

As I pointed out to you before in other posts, you know nothing about minorities when you post about them. Never forget your "I hope you people get justice" post when you claimed to be talking to blacks in D.C about the Trayvon Martin case. Those black folks you said "you people" to probably thought you were crazy. You come across as a backwoods elitist. Come down south to Charlotte, NC, or Hot-lanta, GA and even spew the crap you are spewing and most folks here will see you as someone who is scared to get their hands dirty. Ever worked a manual labor job?

You are beating around the bush with you're answers. If you thing a ER doctor who has to rush in and save a life quick by doing emergency surgery should get the same living standards and pay as the burger flipper than you are one who fails on comprehending reality.

[LAGC]

Thanks for you're elitism... by the way, none of the jobs I mentioned could be done by illegals, because all those jobs required the worker to be legally capable of working in the USA.

I never said "illegals." Just immigrants. And yes, they are taking over most of those menial labor shit jobs, slowly but surely.

Sorry bro, but most of those jobs you listed that you are so proud of pay for shit. Just because Fedex may pay you a dollar more per hour than stocking groceries doesn't mean you can make a living off of it. I assume that's why you are going to school, so that you can hopefully pursue less physically demanding work as a career for better pay? Pardon me if I'm mistaken.

[Krupski]

I never said "illegals." Just immigrants. And yes, they are taking over most of those menial labor shit jobs, slowly but surely.

"Immigrants" are people who came to our Country LEGALLY with the intent of assimilating into American culture and contributing to society as a whole.

For example, my barber came here at age 14 from Italy. He didn't speak a word of English. Now he's 60-something, owns and runs his own little barber shop, has two employees and speaks English just fine (albeit with an Italian accent).

Are these the kind of people you're talking about?

[was_peacemaker]

I never said "illegals." Just immigrants. And yes, they are taking over most of those menial labor shit jobs, slowly but surely.

Sorry bro, but most of those jobs you listed that you are so proud of pay for shit. Just because Fedex may pay you a dollar more per hour than stocking groceries doesn't mean you can make a living off of it. I assume that's why you are going to school, so that you can hopefully pursue less physically demanding work as a career for better pay? Pardon me if I'm mistaken.

You just so contradicted yourself! You assume I go to school, because I want better paying jobs than what I have worked... thus you are implying that is the reason you go to school yourself is, so you can get ahead and make more money.

Oops! That contradicts your whole Marxist quote genius of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Because you desire more than a burger flipper, carpenter, truck loader..etc

If that Marx quote was so important than why must you come on here and brag every time you make a good grade? Does that make you feel superior? I think it does and you see yourself as one who is ahead of the crowd to some extent, and you want to be ahead while trying to shove. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." down our throats. Are you serious?!?

Wow! Do you hear yourself?!?

You must think your epic, or the greatest narcissist on the planet. I know managers at grocery stores who have no more than a HS diploma who make more, than many college professors, and actually get more done than all the sociology word salad BS ever could. By immigrants you meant illegals but you are dancing around the bush and playing games. Legal citizens are not taking our low level jobs, illegals working for people who do not care are. I go to school for my passions in theology and history because it my passion.

[Krupski]

Hey, who launched a satellite and man into orbit first? Certainly not "pretend" work there...

The Russians (at that time Soviets) got the first satellite into space and the first human in orbit mostly because the USA wasn't, up to that point, even trying.

The Soviets could have done a LOT better and done a LOT more (and maybe even beaten the USA to the moon) if the scientists weren't operating under the oppressive communist system.

The Soviets had a LOT of good designs for rockets, nuclear weapons and other high tech stuff, but out of fear of failure, instead built copies of American designs, acquired by espionage.

They wanted success more than they wanted the best result, because an initial failure could result in being sent to the gulag forever or executed.

Even Sergei Korolov (Russia's equivalent of Dr. von Braun) spent time in a gulag and as a result his health suffered, he died relatively young and the Russian space program LOST OUT on many more years of his genius.

For you to imply that communism and/or socialism is "superior" because the Soviets got into space first is completely asinine.

[ready]

You're all wasting your breath. It is a fine example of commie ignorance though.

[LAGC]

You just so contradicted yourself! You assume I go to school, because I want better paying jobs than what I have worked... thus you are implying that is the reason you go to school yourself is, so you can get ahead and make more money.

Not at all, not at all. If college was free and jobs in the sciences only paid the same as manual labor, I'd still pursue it, simply because I'd rather help research shit and figure stuff out than stock grocery store shelves (which I have done before, BTW -- not that fun.)


I go to school for my passions in theology and history because it my passion.

And because you'd rather do that as a career rather than manual labor, correct?

See? There are plenty of incentives to pursue higher education and career goals than just the money factor.

(Again, if college was free like in most First World nations, so no student loan debt to worry about.)

[Goodman]

...socialism will never work because most humans want to advance...we want better...
This.
Humanity operates on self-interest. At the end of the day most of us put our noble public face away and do the books to figure out what's best for our own purposes.
Besides, if we are to take Marx at face value there must be a higher authority than the individual that determines our best-suited ability. Could be that we have enough gifted scientists and what we really need is a thousand more janitors. There are not enough resources to subsidize aspiring wannabe biologists. Sorry about your luck, here's your broom.

[Krupski]

If college was free...

And just who is supposed to pay the salaries of the teaching staff, the support staff, pay for the infrastructure, etc...?

There is no such thing as "free". Anything that someone gets for "free" was paid for by someone else... either with their money or with their labor.

You just don't understand the basic fact that you get nothing for nothing (or else you refuse to admit it).

[LAGC]

And just who is supposed to pay the salaries of the teaching staff, the support staff, pay for the infrastructure, etc...?

There is no such thing as "free". Anything that someone gets for "free" was paid for by someone else... either with their money or with their labor.

You seem to be leaving out one big money source: capital. Far more wealth is generated in this country by machines and equipment than anyone's manual labors.

Why should only the owners of such capital be able to enjoy the boons of other people's labors? After all, workers built all those machines in the first place.

It's only fitting that some of that wealth be redistributed, to pay it forward to the next generation so that they can have a shot at success as well.

[was_peacemaker]

And because you'd rather do that as a career rather than manual labor, correct?

See? There are plenty of incentives to pursue higher education and career goals than just the money factor.

(Again, if college was free like in most First World nations, so no student loan debt to worry about.)

Right, I want to make more money with education because in Capitalism, when you pursue goals, you want better results. I have no quarrel with that.

Do you not see what you're saying?!? Your saying people who are scientist should make as much as the janitor. I am saying the scientist busted his tail more to become more skilled than the janitor, so therefore he should make more. So yes I am going to school to first because those subjects are my passion, and second to make a living.

[LAGC]

Right, I want to make more money with education because in Capitalism, when you pursue goals, you want better results. I have no quarrel with that.

Do you not see what you're saying?!? Your saying people who are scientist should make as much as the janitor. I am saying the scientist busted his tail more to become more skilled than the janitor, so therefore he should make more. So yes I am going to school to first because those subjects are my passion, and second to make a living.

I have no problem with people being paid somewhat more for higher-skilled work.

I just don't see how anyone is worth 100 times the pay of a median worker though, as many CEOs are.

Where's the justice in that?

[Oswald Bastable]

You're all wasting your breath. It is a fine example of commie ignorance though.

^^^This...

All the magical thinking of every liberal/progressive/socialist/commie on the planet has never created something from nothing, never fed a soul without taking the means to do so from someone else, never built a home without shorting someone else, somewhere, so they could do so...

And they call that...equality...

They fail to understand that an ultimate truth of life is that "it's not fair", and they will sacrifice you, me, billions of souls, in an attempt to disprove that...and fail every time.

It truly is a mental illness.

[LAGC]

All the magical thinking of every liberal/progressive/socialist/commie on the planet has never created something from nothing, never fed a soul without taking the means to do so from someone else, never built a home without shorting someone else, somewhere, so they could do so...

Well, as President Obama so eloquently put it, when it comes to business: "You didn't build that."

All that infrastructure, fire-fighting services to protect facilities, police to keep the peace and harbor an atmosphere where doing business is even possible, welfare to stop the poor people from rising up, military to protect against invasion, etc.

All that stuff costs money, it's only fair that people who reap great rewards from our current system pay something back to support it.

If that's "socialism", so be it.

[was_peacemaker]

I have no problem with people being paid somewhat more for higher-skilled work.

I just don't see how anyone is worth 100 times the pay of a median worker though, as many CEOs are.

Where's the justice in that?

Want some cheese with that whiiiiiine?:lets-drink::why-this:

[Goodman]

"You didn't build that."

All that infrastructure, fire-fighting services to protect facilities, police to keep the peace and harbor an atmosphere where doing business
No, all that infrastructure was built by people acting in their own individual self-interest on a project that also produced common benefits to society. You're saying that once that is built, in place paid for that particular individuals should continue to pay extra for it? Sounds like someone using some kind of misplaced guilt to strong arm money out of them.
Of course, since you and Obama have never built anything (a business) I understand why neither of you get it. Too bad you both also let your covetousness affect others.

[Krupski]

You seem to be leaving out one big money source: capital. Far more wealth is generated in this country by machines and equipment than anyone's manual labors.

Why should only the owners of such capital be able to enjoy the boons of other people's labors? After all, workers built all those machines in the first place.

It's only fitting that some of that wealth be redistributed, to pay it forward to the next generation so that they can have a shot at success as well.

Huh? You talk about "capital" as though it's a magic money tree that's just "there" for the taking.

Where do you think the "capital" came from???

If you want money, design a new machine that produces "X" better than ever before, then hire flunkies to build your "X" widgets while you get rich.

But don't be pissed just because someone ELSE did that and has wealth to show for his good idea.

I simply cannot believe that you can use the word "redistributed" concerning someone's wealth.

How can you think that someone who has wealth should give away part of it to someone else? Why should they do that?

Do you own your own home? Hell, it doesn't even matter. Why not find some homeless person and give them your living room to live in... help them out... get them off the street?

Do their laundry for them, teach them how to write a resume, help them get a job. Feed them. Nothing fancy, just toast and jelly is fine.

Do all this for them for free. You have more than they do. Redistribute some of your wealth.

Are you going to do it? Check one:

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

If you checked "Yes", please answer the following:

• Date you plan to begin redistributing: ____ / ____ / __2014__
• Percentage of your total wealth you plan to distribute: ________ %


If you checked "No" then please SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Krupski]

I have no problem with people being paid somewhat more for higher-skilled work.

I just don't see how anyone is worth 100 times the pay of a median worker though, as many CEOs are.

Where's the justice in that?

Whoever said that salaries should be "just"? And who decides what is "just"?

If some company needs, for example, new guidance because their current business model is failing and they hire a hotshot businessman who has a track record of building profits and they pay him a "huge" salary in order to attract him to the job, who is to decide if he's being paid a "just" amount?

The company wants his services, he sells his services and the company has the choice to hire him or not. If they choose to hire him, it none of anyone else's business how much he makes.

If you think he makes "too much" or his salary is "unfairly high" or "unjust", all I can say is "so what" None of your business, none of mine, none of anyones.

Obviously, his employer is happy. Obviously he's happy. That's as far as it goes. It's nobody else's business.

Now tell me why he should "redistribute" his salary to you.

[LAGC]

Huh? You talk about "capital" as though it's a magic money tree that's just "there" for the taking.

Where do you think the "capital" came from???

All capital was originally built by workers.


If you want money, design a new machine that produces "X" better than ever before, then hire flunkies to build your "X" widgets while you get rich.

Fuck no. I don't believe in exploiting workers below me just for my own personal gain. It's morally repugnant to me.


But don't be pissed just because someone ELSE did that and has wealth to show for his good idea.

Why would I be pissed? The more money they make, the more they pay in taxes, some of which gets redistributed back to the workers. Sounds like a win-win to me.


I simply cannot believe that you can use the word "redistributed" concerning someone's wealth.

How can you think that someone who has wealth should give away part of it to someone else? Why should they do that?

Because that wealth isn't generated in a vacuum. The government provides the very foundation that makes such wealth accumulation possible.

Want no government and no taxes? Move to Somalia. Tell me how "fertile" of an environment it is for business over there.


Do you own your own home? Hell, it doesn't even matter. Why not find some homeless person and give them your living room to live in... help them out... get them off the street?

Do their laundry for them, teach them how to write a resume, help them get a job. Feed them. Nothing fancy, just toast and jelly is fine.

That's not my responsibility, it's the community as a whole's. That's why we pay taxes and build homeless shelters, so that the burden is spread amongst everybody, not any one individual.

[Goodman]

^^wow, that's really playing both sides of the field!

Workers get a share of capital gains in their salary, if they squander it, who is to blame? Please don't fall back on the company store argument. If they agree uncoerced to work for a sub-standard pay rate who is to blame?

Also, you must understand business to argue this effectively. The fact is that most businesses are taxed and regulated to the point that it won't take much to cause them to redirect capital. Put more plainly that means eliminate jobs by automation, outsource to another country or maybe just shut the doors. It all adds up to killing the golden goose, at which point we all suffer (see Detroit).
Hell, I'll put it this way- one modest year I had $750,000 in sales. How much do you guess my personal income was? For reference, a good carpenter there that year made about $50,000. I had one customer convinced I was making a million plus. Take a guess. Go ahead.

Capital by its nature in an open market is postured very defensively. When the goose is about to be killed you likely won't know it. One day a guy just John Galts on you and you're left saying "WTF??".

[Krupski]

(1) Fuck no. I don't believe in exploiting workers below me just for my own personal gain. It's morally repugnant to me.

(2) That's not my responsibility, it's the community as a whole's. That's why we pay taxes and build homeless shelters, so that the burden is spread amongst everybody, not any one individual.

(1) Bullshit. If you had a new "widget" design and it was selling, you would be hiring mexicans below minimum wage to maximize your profits and laugh all the way to the bank at the poor slobs making YOU money.

It may be easy for you to say "morally repugnant" when there's no chance of your being in that situation, but you simply cannot tell me that if you had the chance to make more money you would be so magnanimous as to turn it down. BULL-SHIT.

(2) Are you not part of the community? Or is the "community" everyone else except you?

Concerning the bolded part, I'm not asking you to save the world. Just help out ONE homeless person. Let the rest of the "community" help the rest. All you have to do is share SOME of your wealth with ONE homeless person.

So, what's it gonna be? You talk the talk.... will you walk the walk?

[LAGC]

(1) Bullshit. If you had a new "widget" design and it was selling, you would be hiring mexicans below minimum wage to maximize your profits and laugh all the way to the bank at the poor slobs making YOU money.

It may be easy for you to say "morally repugnant" when there's no chance of your being in that situation, but you simply cannot tell me that if you had the chance to make more money you would be so magnanimous as to turn it down. BULL-SHIT.

The only way I'd accept profits is if it came from writing a book or something. Otherwise I'd form a co-op and make all employees equal partners.


(2) Are you not part of the community? Or is the "community" everyone else except you?

Concerning the bolded part, I'm not asking you to save the world. Just help out ONE homeless person. Let the rest of the "community" help the rest. All you have to do is share SOME of your wealth with ONE homeless person.

So, what's it gonna be? You talk the talk.... will you walk the walk?

That's what I'm saying. It would cost a lot more for one individual to take care of an indigent person than it would if everyone chipped in a few pennies in taxes.

Why should any one individual have to carry that burden alone? Your analogy is a non-starter.