3 ms·
> Communism came up when someone asked who was working on solving wealth inequality. That is what this particular thread is about. Yeah if it only went that fa
by hardwaresofton 4y ago
> Communism came up when someone asked who was working on solving wealth inequality. That is what this particular thread is about.
Yeah if it only went that far then maybe it would have been a useful answer to a problem and nothing else, but so much anti-communist propaganda has been said at this point it seems more like you have an axe to grind rather than actually contributing to dialogue.
> Government is necessary. But there should be as little of it as practical, because governments wield power and power is dangerous. It's like gasoline. I need gas to run my car and the lawnmower. But I keep as little of it around as possible. And I don't use gasoline as a household cleaner, and I try not to inhale any of it.
This is too broad a statement to be accurate. You can insert many things in the place of "government' in that lawn mower analogy and sound correct.
This statement is also not very interesting because "as little of it as practical" is the whole debate, for anyone who has thought about it for more than 5 mins.
So essentially, your stance seems to be "small government good". Excellent -- but that doesn't really relate to my point, unless your stance is "small government good, so current and future wealth disparity is fine".
> I don't see the mere existence of wealthy people being a problem. The fact of someone creating wealth (which is how people get wealthy in a free market) is not taking something from someone else.
> I understand that point of view is unpopular.
I suggested we need more wealthy people with higher variance amongst them, so we can see more interesting/varied outcomes. How is this relevant to that discussion?
- WalterBright 4y ago> anti-communist propaganda I'm open to any references to communist experiments that worked. > because "as little of it as practical" is the whole debate People look upon the government as the solution to every problem far too often. The proof is the constant accretion of ever more laws and regulations.
- hardwaresofton 4y agoWell I would ask the same/agree on both of these points. I don't think there are many communist experiments that worked. I also agree that government is not always the solution, as it's just another actor and can be corrupted. But I'd argue that the original thing I was looking for -- more varied people in positions of wealth/influence/power would help solve this... But it may not be solved in a way that the small government crowd would like necessarily. Is the only reasonable state gridlock amongst equally powered proponents on either side? It's not always the case that the right answer is in the middle, of course, but on this issue it seems the passable solutions seem to be.
- WalterBright 4y ago> I don't think there are many communist experiments that worked. I regularly ask for any examples of working communism. To date, none have been offered. To be fair, sometimes someone will post one. But investigating it shows that it didn't actually work. For example, one long-running commune appeared to be successful, but what it was successful at was recruiting a constant stream of enthusiasts to join up, but who inevitably left after 2 years. It's almost as if communism and human nature are just incompatible. For some reason or other, humans are not bees and living in beehives doesn't work for humans.
- hardwaresofton 4y ago> It's almost as if communism and human nature are just incompatible. For some reason or other, humans are not bees and living in beehives doesn't work for humans. This, I completely agree with. Self interest is natural for humans, and is a force to be harnessed.
- mikrl 4y ago>humans are not bees and living in beehives doesn't work for humans BEES ARE COMMIES?? Good thing the pinko bastards are dying en masse, I was worried about that for a second.
- WalterBright 4y agoA beehive is indeed the perfect communist society.