RE: My definition of Socialism and why you do not need force to realize it
with its unfair salaries,
These are appeals to emotion and they generally work, because they feel and sound good but people don't usually truly spend much time thinking about them other than how they make them feel. We all want to be fair right?
Yet, in a voluntary society if I AGREE to work for a certain wage who are you to tell me or the person I agreed to work for that this is unfair. I chose to do so. I could refuse, and if others agreed with me and also refused then it is likely that employer would either realize they can't actually afford to run that business or they will raise their wages until people start to decide that is "fair".
The thing here is that people will state "I have to eat, I had no choice".
In a free market voluntary society there are ways to eat, and choices galore. Can you raise animals to feed yourself? Can you grow crops? Can you use your entrepreneurship and provide products, services, or entertainment that others want? There are choices. If you don't want to do certain choices that is totally your choice. Yet you also shouldn't be expecting people to just support you because you don't have the desire to seek opportunities that will work for you. You cannot expect opportunities to just be handed to you with no effort on your part. So could you be in a bad situation where you need to do something you don't want to do in order to survive? Sure. Yet, that is called reality. I don't actually know anywhere and any system that this is not the case.
I think it is really unfair I have to take a shit occasionally and deal with that nasty odor, and then I have to wipe my ass. That's pretty unfair, and I wish I didn't have to deal with it. Yet when it comes to fairness there is also a thing called reality. We are going to have to do some things we would rather not do. The ones imposed by reality we have no control over. We must do them.
The ones imposed or offered by other people we have a choice over. That choice should always be voluntary without the threat of force.
Choice can be corrupted. The best example would be the election system itself. Freedom of choice does not equal freedom. I could offer someone a punch in the face or a kick to the balls, is that person free then?
One of Marx or Brecht core messages "Erst kommt das fressen, dann die Moral". I tend to agree with it. The threat of death will let most humans act without morality and that is hard to change.
No to the first two questions. I live in an apartment with no animals allowed. Yes to third one. I am in no way someone that should need social help, but what about heavily disabled people, severly ill, children and elderly? Sure some of them might have family and friends to take care of them, but some maybe do not.
I also think something like water supply (Kanalisation) is hard to privatize. It is such a basic need for everyone and it would avoid a ton of bureaucracy if it is just free to use.
I suspect patreon, kickstarter, indiegogo, etc (aka voluntary) would be far more effective at helping such people. Such people can be helped without FORCE. The problem is that those that would choose to FORCE people do so because they don't believe people would help. I wonder where they get that idea? They can't read minds, so the only mind they can truly look at would be their own. So perhaps they see themselves as someone that only helps people when they are forced to and thus they project and say the same of all of society.
EDIT: I'd also like to state that even with the FORCED help people still fall through the cracks and fail to get the help, so in a voluntary system that would also likely be the case. There will be failures. That is reality.
meh, you are actually correct on that one. I know a handicapped person on Steemit @sumsum and one of her main concerns is that people do not care too little about her handicap but actually too much "It is great that you do social work, even though you are handicapped". She does not want to get appreciated because of her handicaps but because of her achievements and qualities as a person.
Sure she would love to have less barriers when it comes to library she visits or restrooms at restaurants she can not use, but those are exactly the things that could be easily financed via crowdfunding instead of taxing people. The very idea of inclusion is to not create a separate class for people we perceive as weak, so I should not use such a class to bolster my argument.
What you offer is irrelevant. I could choose a third choice at that point. YOU don't get to decide choices for someone else. That is not voluntary. People decide their own choices.
aha, so if you only have the option to work for a company or be a company there should be other options for people to live their live?
I think their is a huge difference between being able to choose or being able to act freely.
Many people said America will die without the Sowjet Union because they do not have an enemy anymore. Before that Americans could say "you don't like free markets, and want more socialism? Go to Russia and die from hunger". It also often overlooked what pressure the american state put out on the communist countries through geo-political tactics, like putting trade embargos on NK and then mocking the poor wealth of the country.
Anyways my point was that neither America provided a truly free market nor did the UdSSR provide true socialism for its people. Having the "free choice" between these 2 warped forms of the market systems was sold to some as freedom.
You mean the many people that don't know their history. The many people that don't know that America was around long before animosity with the Russians?
The many people that don't know that prior to 1913 there was no such thing as the income tax in the U.S. and it was expressly prohibited by the constitution prior to that? Yet, somehow we had 130+ years where we fought several wars, and funded our government without the IRS or taxing peoples wages...
The people who think "One Nation Under God" is how it has always been without knowing that that was added to our pledge of allegiance in 1954?
The people who think getting rid of the Department of Education is a crazy idea when that didn't even exist in the U.S. until 1986? I'd argue the education was better before that.
The people who believe not interfering with other countries but being totally willing to trade with them is the same as isolationism, when in fact it is not isolationist at all... it is simply non-intervention?
Do you mean the same people that likely have no clue that WE the Americans actually had invaded and occupied a Russian city prior to World War I. Woodrow Wilson actually had 23 police acts, and things that could be considered acts of war during his presidency... so not only did he give us the Federal Reserve (private banking cartel), and the IRS (previously constitutionally illegal form of taxation), but he also had 23 WARS if you go expressly by the concept of acts of War.
There are a lot of things people say. I'm often curious how much those people actually know about history. There is a lot I don't know. Many of the things I listed above were NEW to me when I stumbled upon them.
I bet you have similar things in Germany.
to be fair the America referred to in this saying is the corrupt corporate mafia with an ambition that emerged as United States after WW2.
I did not know there was one person that managed to introduce FED and taxation. Would you say that taxation in the form of taxacting only the good you purchase but not on the work you do is a step in the right direction? It is no the tax free utopia but it shifts tayes to the place where it belongs: consumption instead of creation.
And yes I do know you have been at war countless times before in between and after the world wars. I just don't know many details, to be fair many European countries were trying to conquer the world in the shadow of the industrial revolution and the renaissance.
Now really the only reason taxes are an issue at all is due to the government needing them to exist. So I will answer your question based on the current paradigm where we do have governments.
This was how it was essentially done before the IRS was implemented in 1913. I have said often we should tax goods, and things that are considered luxury items could be potentially taxed a bit higher IF such tax was going to exist. You think you need that yacht? Fine. It has a nice luxury tax on it. You think you need that third home? Same thing.
I believe a person should have one home tax exempt free. I believe some basic food goods potentially should be tax exempt.
I think we could totally pay for everything simply with sales and luxury taxes. Even better since they are paid at time of purchase they are voluntary, you can choose to buy them or not. They do not offer loopholes, tax shelters, etc.
The reason I believe some items like basic non-luxury food items should not be taxed this way is because people must eat. Thus, it is not a voluntary tax.
Yet something like Caviar, Fancy Ice Cream, Alcohol, etc. Such things should have a sales tax on them.
Yet, if you don't want to do that then even just a flat sales tax on everything would likely be more effective than income tax.
Ultimately, if we had no government and crowd funded our needs then those taxes would be unnecessary as well.
Wow, I did not think you where that much of a socialist xD
Cool to see that you would see the taxation of goods as a step in the right direction. I had a very similar line of thinking, when I heard the idea (no more tax shelters, less bureaucracy, tax hit "the right people") . I was never someone who cried about the high tobacco taxes. If a cigarette is really expensive I might value it higher and not smoke 10 per day. Decent beer and decent water are around the same price tag in Germany, btw. Buying a can of coke is usually a little more expensive than a bottle of beer...
If we must have government and we must have taxes then VOLUNTARY taxes are the only kind I support.
Though ultimately I don't think we would need a government and I think to some degree we are making strides towards that. Yet present day VOLUNTARY taxes (voluntary also means not required to survive, not coerced, etc) are something I would support. I also know it could easily fund governments. They are very wasteful at the moment primarily because they CAN BE and no one stops them and the claim of "classified, secret, national security, etc." allows fraud and corruption to go unaudited.
I don't actually believe the government has much need of secrets.
As far as the U.S. being "Freedom". We have 4% of the worlds population, but 25% of the worlds prisoners. Does that sound free?
nope :)
And at that point people are not really proposing that so much. Every inch of the planet is owned, so many ideas would only truly be applicable if we were say landing on a new planet. The people that talk about Homesteading have some good ideas for that.
or push the reset button aka revolution :3
I appreciate homesteading but even their resources have to come from somewhere.