A Breath of fresh air

[Preston]

Yes, kind-of, but not in the sense I am referring to. Depending on how much they make, yes, I can easily say that a working person should be far more than willing to give away 50% of what they make, for the better cause, given the state of the financial situation in society. It just depends on how much the individual makes. A balance can be struck but when some have everything and some have nothing there is no balance at all.

Please do not think I am railing freedom of humanity!!! Anything but!

I am sure Agnes can. Peter, I thought you understood that the entire point of this redistribution talk was to keep a democratic society, just not a complete and total free-for-all (free-for-all meaning: horrible environmental laws, no redistribution of money, etc.). My goodness, I did not mean to come off seeming as though I am supportive of a dictatorship!? What happened???

I do believe in democracy, just not a free-for-all democracy. I believe in a different form of democracy. I see somewhat clearly, that while a wholly democratic society is not wholly forceful on very key subjects (religion, speech, etc.) - as a dictatorship is - at the same time great suffering and great oppression come with a wholly democratic society - and that is the problem.

I apologize if I am being too pessimistic. It is just it is a touchy subject and there are very sad and severe things happening.

[Peter]

Yes, absolutely agree Sorrano. And less is more. The insane passion for more and more useless material goods has to be cast out so that the greater goods of peace, well being, and love of neighbour can be cultivated. So I guess we can all make a virtue of necessity in these times we live in.

Absolutely Robert, I couldn't agree more! We have to stop expecting the state to do everything for us and take responsibility for our own lives - if people stopped spending money they don't have on things they don't need they may begin to find a degree of contentment in life - no matter how much money they have, if they always want more things they will never be happy.

[Peter]

Though, in truth, all of this talk about redistribution and what not is a fantasy or dream compared to the harsh truth of reality. In truth many people have suffered for their lives since the beginning of humanity. And now - capitalism, complete democracy without restrictions, consumption, modern culture, endless metropolises, etc. are the way of the future. These sins will continue to destroy not only the earth but its inhabitants. Probably democracy without any necessary restrictions will continue to swell and drag the earth down with it - and then, POP!!!

And all government will be gone.

Then, it will be up to people in the future to survive in the dry wastelands created by us and form a new type of society - hopefully one that is far more caring towards each individual - than the societies of now.

In a sense redistribution already happens - people pay income tax and the more you earn the more you pay. In the UK the top rate is 50% and can you reasonably say to a working person that they should give more than half of what they have earned away? A balance must be struck and I think generally in western countries (although they differ in the detail) it is.

Concerning democracy - I wouldn't be so dismissive or so negative about it Preston - no one in Europe gets locked up or executed for their political views and although the system is far from perfect, Agnes will tell you the reality of not living in a democracy.

[Preston]

Though, in truth, all of this talk about redistribution and what not is a fantasy or dream compared to the harsh truth of reality. In truth many people have suffered for their lives since the beginning of humanity. And now - capitalism, complete democracy without restrictions, consumption, modern culture, endless metropolises, etc. are the way of the future. These sins will continue to destroy not only the earth but its inhabitants. Probably democracy without any necessary restrictions will continue to swell and drag the earth down with it - and then, POP!!!

And all government will be gone.

Then, it will be up to people in the future to survive in the dry wastelands created by us and form a new type of society - hopefully one that is far more caring towards each individual - than the societies of now.

[Preston]

You have some intereasting thoughts. As to the distribution of money,
do you see it as a one time deal or a periodic enterprise? Once such monies
are distributed, how do you see it being amassed again? Who would
be amassing the money for further distribution or would the distribution
be a deterrent to further amassing of wealth. What sort of enterprise would
arise from such distribution to contribute to the creation of jobs? Or would
such distribution of money stop incentive altogether and then everyone could
enjoy poverty to the fullest extent.

You ask some very valid questions. I really don't know, that is why Peter and I were saying how complex it would be. Something desperately needs to be done though, and in a peaceful way. Here are some brief thoughts to your questions:

- no probably based on an individuals annual income
- through the same annual process
- i would like to not say government, but i do not see much other way? unless it was somehow done through businesses - which perhaps could be possible. if it was government something like social security. an interesting thought to my mind is that, given the amount of money the very wealthy have, many people could probably retire around 40, all while the wealthy remain wealthy.
- a similar type of free-enterprise system could remain, to my mind. though, hopefully it will eventually provide for greener jobs, !
- incentive would have to be a key understanding, otherwise everyone would fall into somekind of poverty lifestyle. i think incentive would not be a problem as long as there are still economic classes.

As for the classes - sadly, it will always be an unfair world in general and especially when money is the basis of a modern society. I just wanted to say that the entire focus of a redistribution should be for two main things to help the poor and to help much needed retirement situation. So, in a society based on money there will always be a poor class, the point of a redistribution would be to help the poor class live in less poor environments and more comfortably - though they would still not be rich, of course - far from it.

[Agnes Selby]

Just some thoughts:
I am sorry if you have suffered from oppression. Though, a point is that oppression is alive and kicking in democracy - 1 in 6 Americans are living off of food stamps, that should be a wake up call to the entire government. And it is, to a good degree. So even though it is not oppression for many, it is at the same time, oppression for many. And that is serious, so serious, to my mind.

You have some intereasting thoughts. As to the distribution of money,
do you see it as a one time deal or a periodic enterprise? Once such monies
are distributed, how do you see it being amassed again? Who would
be amassing the money for further distribution or would the distribution
be a deterrent to further amassing of wealth. What sort of enterprise would
arise from such distribution to contribute to the creation of jobs? Or would
such distribution of money stop incentive altogether and then everyone could
enjoy poverty to the fullest extent.

[Chris]

OK Chris, so are you saying we should read the Old and New Testament in the original language(s), that this would be essential? So the muslims in Indonesia (or Pakistan) who can't read classical Arabic (becasue they speak, respectively, Indonesian or one of its many dialects/languages, or Urdu/Punjabi) have a somewhat "diminished" access to their Holy Book?

"Should"? Well, that depends on what you are trying to get out of it. If you just want to know what is basically in it, then that would hardly be necessary. But if you what to understand it to the deepest degree possible, then it's either that or trust someone to tell you what it means. Which is fine. I'm just saying that not all translations are equal and that understanding what is written in these books is about more than just reading the literal words.

[Preston]

Sorry, I have lived
through Socialism/Communism in Czechoslovakia and remember how well that worked!

Just some thoughts:
I am sorry if you have suffered from oppression. Though, a point is that oppression is alive and kicking in democracy - 1 in 6 Americans are living off of food stamps, that should be a wake up call to the entire government. And it is, to a good degree. So even though it is not oppression for many, it is at the same time, oppression for many. And that is serious, so serious, to my mind.

[Preston]

To add:

As to the redistribution of money - the rich must continue to be rich (just not 'that' rich) or there will be no incentive. A flat tax will not work. It would have to be a very well thought out setup - a very wise and knowledgeable setup.

Also, I thank the divine powers (if they exist) that I am not rich, I mean this deeply. Because then I would probably be shouting long live capitalism - that alone is sends horror down my spine. I am glad that I am not living in the poverty oppressed environments either.

[Preston]

Communism and Socialism are different. I am not talking about either wholly. I am talking about a simple socialistic aspect - a form of redistribution. Agnes, I do not know the answers but I stand by what I said and believe.

As to what it is - I do not know, that is one of the questions. Though, the bottom line is oppression is alive and kicking to a great degree in countries that have this complete "democracy". I am not saying have a wholly socialistic society, by any means. I am saying that many people are living in an oppressed environment because of a wholly capitalistic society. And that is a terribly saddening thing.

Complete democracy turns out to be the very injustice of a dictatorship, in some great sense, to my mind. The interesting thing is that for a large part, it is the ones who don't suffer from severe financial problems that do not see this - just like the ones in a dictatorship who are supported by the dictatorship?!

So, I am saying yes I believe when a society is based around money there needs to be redistribution. That is the most simple and obvious thing, to my mind. I mean if there is not redistribution of income then the very foundations and wheels - if you will, of the money based society, the working class will always be poor!

I do not see how people can be so supportive of poverty! I know they say they are not, but they let it happen, through there own greed. Then make the most belligerent excuses to hold on to their money and damn any aspect of Socialist thought - which is a beautiful and more compassionate thought.

So, I do not know how to go about a redistribution of money, which all modernized countries are based around, and while society will always be anything from fair, it can be more fair to some degree.

[Quijote]

Yes, to some it is hell to some it is paradise. Sorry, I have lived
through Socialism/Communism in Czechoslovakia and remember how well that worked!

No, to most it is hell, for a very small minority it is paradise. I haven't had the "privilege" of living through a supposed socialist/communist paradise in former Soviet-bloc countries, but I do know former east Germans here in Strasbourg who maintain a certain nostalgia for full employment.

[Agnes Selby]

Agnès, whilst I accept that Preston's postings are at times muddled, the division of wealth per se does not necessarily imply loss of tax revenue.
As to the rest of your posting, I more or less agree, with one exception - I quote you :

Yes, I agree, some salaries are beyond comprehension. However, so
is the idleness of some people who feel it is their right to feed off others
who are willing to work.

I can't help feeling in that comment that you are implying there is a sizeable minority of idle parasites out there in society at large. I am very probably a naive optimist, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of unemployed people living off state benefits would much rather be in some sort of "meaningful" employment. I truly believe that being unemployed is hell.

Yes, to some it is hell to some it is paradise. Sorry, I have lived
through Socialism/Communism in Czechoslovakia and remember how well that worked!

[Quijote]

What is it then, Preston, that you are advocating? Division of wealth also means less revenue to the state. Who would then pay for the roads and crumbling bridges if there was not one taxable person left. Dismantled corporation would have no means to emply people nor the incentive to do so. Are you advocating that incentive to work and to amass wealth is a sin? Some people are more capable than others. The same applies to school children, some are more capable at learning to read than others. People cannot be grouped under a single roof. What we should celebrate is diversity.

Yes, I agree, some salaries are beyond comprehension. However, so is the idleness of some people who feel it is their right to feed off others who are willing to work.
Perhaps the perfect utopia is allowing people to be themselves and not try and change them. Because a forced change only brings others to power who had envied those whose wealth they had literally stolen. And as for the deserted island situation...how utterly boring!

Agnès, whilst I accept that Preston's postings are at times muddled, the division of wealth per se does not necessarily imply loss of tax revenue.
As to the rest of your posting, I more or less agree, with one exception - I quote you :

Yes, I agree, some salaries are beyond comprehension. However, so
is the idleness of some people who feel it is their right to feed off others
who are willing to work.

I can't help feeling in that comment that you are implying there is a sizeable minority of idle parasites out there in society at large. I am very probably a naive optimist, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of unemployed people living off state benefits would much rather be in some sort of "meaningful" employment. I truly believe that being unemployed is hell.

[Agnes Selby]

Marx and Engels were communists. They were sadly pushing for somekind of utopia. When you refer to the above it is not about Marx and Engels communism, quite the opposite.

Just didn't want to cause any confusion, .

What is it then, Preston, that you are advocating? Division of wealth
also means less revenue to the state. Who would then pay for the roads
and crumbling bridges if there was not one taxable person left. Dismantled
corporation would have no means to emply people nor the incentive
to do so. Are you advocating that incentive to work and to amass wealth
is a sin? Some people are more capable than others. The same applies
to school children, some are more capable at learning to read than others.
People cannot be grouped under a single roof. What we should celebrate
is diversity.

Yes, I agree, some salaries are beyond comprehension. However, so
is the idleness of some people who feel it is their right to feed off others
who are willing to work.

Perhaps the perfect utopia is allowing people to be themselves and not try and change them. Because a forced change only brings others to power
who had envied those whose wealth they had literally stolen.

And as for the deserted island situation...how utterly boring!

[Quijote]

Without wishing to be flippant, this strikes me as a "Mel Gibson" standpoint.