Am I the only one . . .

[scott]

Your definition says: "various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government".

Please show me where I advocate for the estatization of the means of production? Where do I advocate for the government to further control de economy?

Alright... I'll type this slow...

What part of the Government using money from taxpayers to distribute to non-taxpayers doesn't sound like "distributing goods that are collectively owned"?

The "owners" of a Government are its citizens, and the funds the Government has available to give to starving people in a third world country are collectively owned by the people. You are suggesting distributing these collectively owned goods by some centralized means (the Government). If you are unable to make the connection from this point, then I'm afraid you can't be helped.

All I want is for people to realize that in parts of the World, people are starving, have no education, no healthcare . . . while in other parts of the World, people are deciding if they buy a $5,000 plasma TV for Christmas or if they drop $1,000 on a bottle of wine.

People who spend $5000 on plasma TV's are fully aware that people are starving. However, they are free to do with their $5000 as they wish. Your continued desire to place a negative connotation on someone spending money on themselves might be a Christian principal.

[smeagol]

Alright... I'll type this slow...

Well, I thought we were having a mature discussion on a very important issue, trying to keep the low blows at a minimum, but it looks like you wanna bring the sarcasm level up a notch . . . no problem, sparky, I can play that game too.

What part of the Government using money from taxpayers to distribute to non-taxpayers doesn't sound like "distributing goods that are collectively owned"?

Johnny, every government distributes its money to people who did not contribute on a pro rata basis. You friendly farmer, who cannot compete with farmers in Latin America given the different cost structures which exist here and there, gets a ton of money from you and me in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Does he contribute so much so as to be en led to recieve so much in the form of benefits? Probably not.

Your ineficient steel-mill owner, who cannot compete with his counterparts in China, recieves benefits from tariffs the government imposses on the Chinese steel imports. Why is he en led to such benefits from the government? And by the way, some of the taxes the government collect comes from non-citizend when they pay import duties.

Governments do it all the time. They collect more taxes from the wealthy and they give away more benefits to the poor. Its called progressive tax system.

What really defines a socialistic gevernment is not the way they distribute the proceeds from taxes but the way they control the economy. The more they control the means of production, the more socialistic they are. The extreme is called communism.

Again, where did I advocate for the state to expropriate from the private sector the means of production? NOWHERE, sport. Because I do not favor socialism. I come from a country where the government used to own the telephones, the utilities, the oil production, the mail system, the water systems and guess what . . . the phones did not work, there were power and gas shortages on a daily basis, you copuld not send a package through the mail because it never reached its destiny, etc. Do you get my point, sparky?

So please, STFU with trying to say I'm advocating socialism 'cause I'm not. I cannot say it any clearer than this. If you are unable to make the connection from this point, then I'm afraid you can't be helped, dummy.

The "owners" of a Government are its citizens, and the funds the Government has available to give to starving people in a third world country are collectively owned by the people. You are suggesting distributing these collectively owned goods by some centralized means (the Government). If you are unable to make the connection from this point, then I'm afraid you can't be helped.

For the last time. All I'm saying is that people in the US/Europe/Japan/etc need to understand that the problems in the Third World will not be resolved without their help. They will certainly not be resolved bombing the out of other countries or closing the borders.

People who spend $5000 on plasma TV's are fully aware that people are starving.

No they are not. You know how I know they are not? Becase I buy superflous things all the time and I forget about the starving people too. I have a $2,000 TV at home. I could have bought a $300 TV but hey, I need to see those NBA playoff in style! But we are humans and we cannot help thinking about us first. And I am no better than the you, in this respect. I try to be, but I fail at it.

However, they are free to do with their $5000 as they wish. Your continued desire to place a negative connotation on someone spending money on themselves might be a Christian principal.

If there is a guy on the street who will die if you don't buy him a meal and you decide to use your $5,000 to buy yourself a plasma TV, that's not a good thing to do. You can spin it every way you like. If you want to say its a Christian principal, be my guest.

What I'm sure of is that this world will never be a better place if the majority of people think like you do.

Again, Happy Holidays.

[scott]

Johnny, every government distributes its money to people who did not contribute on a pro rata basis.

And every government who does so engages in Socialistic behavior. There is no Government or Economic system truely based off Free Enterprise on this planet, and that should be the goal- not more Statist behavior (which is what you imply by saying the Goverment is obliged to help non-citizens).

Your ineficient steel-mill owner, who cannot compete with his counterparts in China, recieves benefits from tariffs the government imposses on the Chinese steel imports. Why is he en led to such benefits from the government?

He shouldn't be en led to such benefits, but that is another topic. If you want to talk about reducing barriers to entry, then it will be a short conversation between the two of us because as far as I can tell we would be in agreement. As I stated long ago, there is no justification for the type of barriers to entry you have mentioned.

But just because the Government makes the mistake of unjustfully supporting inefficient production does mean it should also make the mistake of acting as a Congressionally Mandated Charity.

Again, where did I advocate for the state to expropriate from the private sector the means of production? NOWHERE, sport. Because I do not favor socialism.

And nowhere have I said you did advocate for the state to control the means of production. But, as I've provided, there are more parts to the definition of socialism. A government mandated charity is a socialist idea, and you can talk about the means of production until you are blue, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a Government controlled distribution of collectively owned goods. A lot of Government programs are socialist in this way. I'm not accusing you of being a Socialist or being the first person to suggest a Socialist program in America or any other country, because they are already quite abundant. And as I also stated a long time ago, it may very well be in the best interest for the United States to engage in this Socialist behavior and have a Government charity for third world countries, but it would still be Socialist in nature, regardless of your disdain for the word.

If there is a guy on the street who will die if you don't buy him a meal and you decide to use your $5,000 to buy yourself a plasma TV, that's not a good thing to do.

That isn't for me, you, or anyone else to decide. The only person who can decide what is good for you to do with your money is you.

What I'm sure of is that this world will never be a better place if the majority of people think like you do.

You don't know anything about how I think. You don't know what I give to charity, you don't know how many hours of my time I volunteer each year. All you know is that I want to decide for myself which charities/people I give to and how much I give to them. I don't want to Government deciding for me- you, obviously, do.

Happy holidays to you too.

[smeagol]

And every government who does so engages in Socialistic behavior. There is no Government or Economic system truely based off Free Enterprise on this planet, and that should be the goal- not more Statist behavior (which is what you imply by saying the Goverment is obliged to help non-citizens).

Please re-read my posts. I never say that the governemnt should be obliged to do this or do that. All I'm saying is that I would like the people of the developed world to feel an uncontrollable urge to help the people from the third world. I cannot say it more simple than that.

That isn't for me, you, or anyone else to decide. The only person who can decide what is good for you to do with your money is you.

I disagree. If you use your money to hire a gunman to kill my daughter, that's a bad use of you money. If you use your money to commercialize iligal drugs to nine year olds, again, bad use of your money. I'm not the one who will judge you ultimately. That's for sure.

You don't know anything about how I think. You don't know what I give to charity, you don't know how many hours of my time I volunteer each year. All you know is that I want to decide for myself which charities/people I give to and how much I give to them. I don't want to Government deciding for me- you, obviously, do.

Scott, my solution to many of the problems the world is in is that the people who have the means help the people who do not have them.

What is yours?

Because people are starving, peolpe are suffering . . .

[scott]

Please re-read my posts. I never say that the governemnt should be obliged to do this or do that.

This is where I got the idea that you suggested that the Government be obliged to give money to the starving and suffering people of other countries:

In my view, the US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc have a moral duty towards the Third world.

Coupled with this:

Its up to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Governments of the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc, you, me to decide how much to give in time and money to help the people who are starving, have no education, have no medical protecion, in the US and in the rest of the World.

Moving on...

All I'm saying is that I would like the people of the developed world to feel an uncontrollable urge to help the people from the third world.

That's a noble cause, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, once again, if these people all had the uncontrollable urge to help people from the third world, there would be no need for Government interaction. The uncontrollable urge in people will be enough.

What you are implying, purposefully or not, is that private charity is not enough, even with this uncontrollable urge, and the Government should step in and force the transfer of goods from its citizens to some non-citizens above and beyond what the people have already decided is enough. You will respond with "I'm not suggesting the Government force anything" but that is precisely what you are suggesting. Any Government Supplement will be a coercion, because the Free Market will have already made what they consider the optimal level of contribution.

I disagree. If you use your money to hire a gunman to kill my daughter, that's a bad use of you money. If you use your money to commercialize iligal drugs to nine year olds, again, bad use of your money. I'm not the one who will judge you ultimately. That's for sure.

I give you credit for having much more intelligence than this... c'mon... blantant non-sequitur. There is a distinct difference between someone choosing to spend money on themselves (which will have absolutely no direct impact on anyone else other than perhaps some other Joe might not be able to buy that exact item) and an action which kills or harms people.

You are above this.

Scott, my solution to many of the problems the world is in is that the people who have the means help the people who do not have them.

What is yours?

The only difference between my solution and yours is that yours involves a non-Free Market approach. So long as you are going to promote such Government interaction, you really have no room to about tariffs or barriers to entry, because they are both anti-Free Market and equally illogical.

[smeagol]

OK, here we go again. You say:

This is where I got the idea that you suggested that the Government be obliged to give money to the starving and suffering people of other countries:

In my view, the US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc have a moral duty towards the Third world.

Since when is "having a moral duty" = obliged?


Moral duty, IMO, means something you should do because you feel it's the right thing to do, but you are not "obliged" to do it. We were created with free will, therefore we choose every day between several options. Many times we chose poorly.

We're under a moral duty not to lie . . . but we lie on a daily basis. We should not lie, but we do.

What I meant is that it is the right thing to do to help the countries that need that help badly, but in no way, shape or form should this be done in a coerced fashion. I thought we covered this.

Its up to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Governments of the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc, you, me to decide how much to give in time and money to help the people who are starving, have no education, have no medical protection, in the US and in the rest of the World.

Again, I say it's up to them to decide. No coercion, no obligation. If they decide to give zero, zilch, nada, its up to them.

All I'm saying is that I would like the people of the developed world to feel an uncontrollable urge to help the people from the third world.

"Uncontrollable urge" not equal to coercion.

That's a noble cause, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, once again, if these people all had the uncontrollable urge to help people from the third world, there would be no need for Government interaction. The uncontrollable urge in people will be enough.

What you are implying, purposefully or not, is that private charity is not enough, even with this uncontrollable urge, and the Government should step in and force the transfer of goods from its citizens to some non-citizens above and beyond what the people have already decided is enough. You will respond with "I'm not suggesting the Government force anything" but that is precisely what you are suggesting. Any Government Supplement will be coercion, because the Free Market will have already made what they consider the optimal level of contribution.

Ok, lets settle this point. If the half of the world which is rich is going to give as much as they can to help the other starving half, then all I ask the governments of the developed countries to do is to level the playing field as much as possible (eliminate tariffs, eliminate commercial barriers).

I give you credit for having much more intelligence than this... c'mon... blantant non-sequitur. There is a distinct difference between someone choosing to spend money on themselves (which will have absolutely no direct impact on anyone else other than perhaps some other Joe might not be able to buy that exact item) and an action which kills or harms people.

You are above this..

Scott, I think it will be difficult for us to agree on this point given our different beliefs. I will try to explain what I meant when I used those "over the top" examples.

The decisions of how to use your money, in a smaller or larger scale, affect the people around you. My examples were extreme, but they can be used as a starting point.

Let me give you other examples where you are spending money on yourself and which do not include using your money to kill others directly:

1) You buy a product which is manufactured by a company who uses children as slaves to make this product. With your purchase you have helped this company to stay in business and continue with its bad business practices.

Although you (and I) probably don't think of the consequences of buying a mundane product on any given shop, this happens a lot. Is it right to spend your money this way?

2) A father comes to you with her dying son. He asks you for money to buy him medicine. You do not give him any money, turn around and buy yourself a plasma TV.

As you have told me in the past, "It isn't for me, you, or anyone else to decide if this man's actions were wrong. The only person who can decide what is a good way to spend his money is himself".

You might be right. It's not my place to judge him. At the end of the day, I believe he will be judged (by God). But if you ask for my opinion (and I believe everybody is en led to have an opinion), what he did is not wrong. He used his money in the wrong way.

3) You decide to use money that could have been given to charity to indulge yourself with drugs, women, excess food, and alcohol. Is that the best way you could have used that money?

You see, there are many "shades of grey" when you discuss this topic about "the correct use of your extra money". Its a difficult topic.

The only difference between my solution and yours is that yours involves a non-Free Market approach. So long as you are going to promote such Government interaction, you really have no room to about tariffs or barriers to entry, because they are both anti-Free Market and equally illogical.

I believe my solution would be more effective. At the end of the day, I want the people who are starving to receive food. Private aid has not accomplished this. The governments need to get involved. The question is at what scale.

[scott]

No time for the rest of your post, but here my response to a part. I'll respond to the rest later.

Since when is "having a moral duty" = obliged?

Here is of of the definitions of "Obligation" per dictionary.com:

A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.

[JoeChalupa]

Is not the government for the people and by the people?
I feel it is the moral duty of the government to help the people and isn't that what compassionate conservatism should be?

[smeagol]

No time for the rest of your post, but here my response to a part. I'll respond to the rest later.

Here is of of the definitions of "Obligation" per dictionary.com:

Scott:

Afler four pages of discussion, I believe I'm failing to communicate my point. It could be a problem of semantics, poor grammar or maybe a lack of communication skills on my part.

What I was trying to say when I used the phrase "moral duty to help the helpless countries" is that I believe that is the right thing for the rich countries to do just that. They (people and governments) cannot be coerced into helping, it has to come from within.

You cannot coerce governemnts or people into giving more than what they already give, as much as you cannot coerce the atheist to believe in God. You have to truly believe it is the right thing to do not to spend your money on superflous goods and give that money to someone who is starving. If you don't believe its the right thing to do, then you cannot be forced not to spend the money you were saving for a new plasma TV on charity.

Likewise, you cannot be forced to believe in God. You either do, or you don't.

It would be nice to hear what other people's views are on the topic. We should invite the people who posted in the God Thread . . .

Hope you had a nice XMas.

[MannyIsGod]

If you take government out of that last statement, I don't think scott would have a problem agreeing with you. I simply think you misunderstand that including government in the situation at all makes it a socialist situation. I'm not saying that's entirely bad to a degree, but it is what it is.

[Guru of Nothing]

I think 99% of the populace agrees that we should all lend a helping hand to those less fortunate. I am among the 99%.

NOW, how much do you want from me? Give me a number to work with; I may then agree or disagree with you.

And quit bringing God into the conversation. Does your God sit idle while billions suffer?

[smeagol]

NOW, how much do you want from me? Give me a number to work with; I may then agree or disagree with you.

As much as your heart desires. If I give you a number then it would defeat the purpose.

And quit bringing God into the conversation.

Very difficult for me to discuss these kinds of topics were your inner beliefs are involved without involving God.

If it bothers you that much, I will try not to bring Him up as often.

Does your God sit idle while billions suffer?

If you don't want me to talk about God, there is no way I can answer this question.

[Guru of Nothing]

No numbers, no words.

Bu-bye.

[ALVAREZ6]

If you take government out of that last statement, I don't think scott would have a problem agreeing with you. I simply think you misunderstand that including government in the situation at all makes it a socialist situation. I'm not saying that's entirely bad to a degree, but it is what it is.

I think we would all agree with what Smeagol is trying to say. But how many people actually go out and do it?

Maybe in the future this world will develop a new system, but then again, i can't see anything changing.
Money = everything in this world.
You can't go anywhere without money.
If your poor, you don't even have the money to go and try to look for an oppertunity to get money. So you are pretty much screwed.

[scott]

Manny is correct.

[smeagol]

If you take government out of that last statement, I don't think scott would have a problem agreeing with you. I simply think you misunderstand that including government in the situation at all makes it a socialist situation. I'm not saying that's entirely bad to a degree, but it is what it is.

Unfortunately its governemnts who have to chip in to resolve the mess the World's in by eliminating their creations which distort free market (subsidies and trade barriers). People cannot do that, governemnts can. I fail to see what's socialistic about that.

[MannyIsGod]

Unfortunately its governemnts who have to chip in to resolve the mess the World's in by eliminating their creations which distort free market (subsidies and trade barriers). People cannot do that, governemnts can. I fail to see what's socialistic about that.

Well then by that statement, I'd agree with you. There is nothing socialistic about asking the governments to repeal their protectionist measures, and on that sentiment I agree with you.

I think something to be remembered is that these steps are not ones to be taken quickly and without through examination due to the destablization that would occour.

I do support a well thought way of doing that Smeagol because it helps the entire world and in the end it would help out the people of the nations that are now using such tactics (such as American people paying cheaper prices for produce, etc etc.).

[scott]

Unfortunately its governemnts who have to chip in to resolve the mess the World's in by eliminating their creations which distort free market (subsidies and trade barriers).

I agree with this statement, but I continue to contend that the idea of the Government acting as a charity is in itself a distortion of the free market. It would just be a subsidy with a different beneficiary.

[Nbadan]

I agree with this statement, but I continue to contend that the idea of the Government acting as a charity is in itself a distortion of the free market. It would just be a subsidy with a different beneficiary.

Eh, if you wanted to break it down to fundamentals, the Government itself is a distortion of the free market system, but it doesn't mean that the Government doesn't play a vital role in the market system game, especially when it comes to protecting domestic workers rights, setting enviromental regulations, and fighting for the safety of U.S. consumers.

[scott]

Don't disagree with that statement, Dan.

[Hook Dem]

Smeagol.....check to see who is on the scene helping earthquake and tsunami victims with money and people. The United States Right???? Is this the kind of help you are talking about????

[smeagol]

I was not referring particularly to this kind of help. I think this kind of help is very humanitarian and its nice to see the US stepping up (the US and its people usually step up when natural disasters occur), but the help I have in mind is more long term. If it happened, it would solve some of the World's problems, not give relief to countries devastated by natural disasters.