| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea. |
| Strongly Agree |
|
25% |
[ 7 ] |
| Agree |
|
39% |
[ 11 ] |
| Disagree |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
| Strongly Disagree |
|
32% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 28 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 8:17 am Post subject: From each to each |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea. |
Another question from the political compass test.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
I myself choose "Agree". Fundamentally, I think I actually strongly agree, but...
Communism is not a bad idea in theory, but it has been plagued by the specter of corruption especially when attempted on a large scale.
So much so that capitalism has proven more practical.
But the balance is between the two.
Capitalism is far from corrupt. Look what it does to "democracy".
In the current time frame, socialism helps balance things out.
Some attack it as communist, but it's not.
Countries far less developed than the US have socialized healthcare, and it makes a lot more sense than paying outrageous insurance premiums or paying a doctor 40 bucks to tell you you're OK.
Everyone should have the right to medicine.
So, to each as much as possible, but not with taking advantage by either side, rich or poor.
Overwhelmingly in the US, it's a lop-sided equation in favor of money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
soviet_man
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Communism is not a bad idea in theory, but it has been plagued by the specter of corruption especially when attempted on a large scale. |
I hate to rain on your anti-communist parade.
But .... 3 days ago, Mongolia democratically elected a former communist into the position of President.
Even capitalists would concede that it was a NOT corrupt vote - to name but ONE example.
SOURCE:
"Ex-Communist Wins Mongolian Presidency"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm sounds smart but I think I too dense to grasp the meaning  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There should be a social security system set up to provide a minimum to people who fall on hard times or are almost completely unable to take care of themselves. However, able people should be allowed to prosper after paying taxes (or giving to charity) a certain amount. I put agree, but I could have easily also put disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guangho
Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Location: a spot full of deception, stupidity, and public micturation and thus unfit for longterm residency
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm one of a dwindling number who believes that a society is one where each person has two sets of responsibilities- to himself and to others. You have a responsibility to take care of yourself, to grow, to learn to find independence and fullfillment in life. As well as a responsibility to others to ensure that those whose basic needs have not been met, those who are not as fortunate as you will be given the opportunity to thrive without constantly struggling for survival. Most people believe the first part- almost no one cares about the second. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| guangho wrote: |
| I'm one of a dwindling number who believes that a society is one where each person has two sets of responsibilities- to himself and to others. You have a responsibility to take care of yourself, to grow, to learn to find independence and fullfillment in life. As well as a responsibility to others to ensure that those whose basic needs have not been met, those who are not as fortunate as you will be given the opportunity to thrive without constantly struggling for survival. Most people believe the first part- almost no one cares about the second. |
I think fundamentally it is a good idea BUT I don't think it should have anything to do with the government. It should be a personal choice like giving to charities. It's a wonder charities even still exist in that government TAKES your money to pay for social programs. Perhaps if I had more disposable income I would donate more to charity than I already do. I know I'll be blasted for this, but when you throw away a belief in someone or something superior to yourself then you are accountable to no one but yourself and that's all you're interested in taking care of. Yes, even in a socialist setting. I just don't think government (at least in the U.S.) has any business forcing people to support others for whatever reason much like I'm repulsed by the gay lifestyle but don't think government has any business telling people how to conduct their personal lives.
No system is going to be fair as long as you have to deal with the inherent greediness of mankind (yes, womankind too RS & bob  ). We've never had a purely socialist government nor a purely capitalist government in the history of the world but dream on you Utopians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sleepy in Seoul
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I voted "strongly agree". Back in my home country I do give to charities, but very quickly one is inundated with entreaties to donate to every possible charity imaginable. I become sick of it after a while, especially after I pay taxes to do the same job.
I believe that humans are inherently weak and selfish, and that while many people may give to charity, many, many more will not. I believe that it is the duty and responsibility of governments to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. I will continue to cheerfully pay my taxes if I can rest assured that they are being used wisely and not wasted on politicians' rorts. A few years ago I was incensed when I read that Australia's richest man, Kerry Packer, in one financial year paid only $200.00 income tax. What a bastard. I would rather that 100 people abuse the welfare system if, at the same time, even one person is saved from starving or freezing to death from lack of assistance.
While I would like to believe that individual people would all try to help their fellow man, I know that, on the whole, they will not. That saddens me, and I am saddened even more when I hear or read of people who say that it not the responsibility of the government to ensure the safety of its citizens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
While I would like to believe that individual people would all try to help their fellow man, I know that, on the whole, they will not. That saddens me, and I am saddened even more when I hear or read of people who say that it not the responsibility of the government to ensure the safety of its citizens. |
I guess it all depends on your viewpoint. While I understand your sentiments, I'm just as convinced that there are some things a government is not designed to do. One is to protect individuals from themselves. IMO, governments can and should try to insure equality of opportunity but government should not be a wealth redistribution mechanism. Is it "fair" that way? No, but neither is stealing someone's hard-earned money to pay for someone else to carry on with life. If the wage earner wants to give their money away, absolutely wonderful but theft by the government is still theft. Will people give to charities? Some will but a lot won't. It seems to me we should be working on the motivation to give rather than having the government steal for social welfare purposes and give people no motivation to give because they've been robbed blind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 3:51 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Bear in mind that the accusations of government stealing can be leveled at virtually any government program someone doesn't want, like, or support.
Why should people be forced to pay for a war they don't support?
The space program?
Grants for blueberry research?
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
