Voluntary tax: How much would you pay?

[Alive]

Quote by: christibe Doesn't the theory of capitalism actually require lack, which requires unemployment, which requires suffering?

Lack exists. That's simply reality. Capitalism doesn't require it; capitalism and all other systems find it already there.

Lack does not "require" unemployment. Quite the contrary, if there was no lack there would be 100% unemployment. The point of employment is to relieve lack. Capitalism maximizes efficiency of employment and thus minimizes lack, which in turn minimizes suffering caused by lack.

But, what does this have to do with the topic?

Nothing. On the other hand, the topic seems to have been created by a misunderstanding in the first place so I don't feel too bad about responding to a point made off topic.

[christibe]

[quote=Alive;415186]Lack exists. That's simply reality. Capitalism doesn't require it; capitalism and all other systems find it already there.

Lack does not "require" unemployment. Quite the contrary, if there was no lack there would be 100% unemployment. The point of employment is to relieve lack. Capitalism maximizes efficiency of employment and thus minimizes lack, which in turn minimizes suffering caused by lack. /QUOTE]
Communism works to eliminate lack, though. When it comes up, something else produces a little more to counter, once again achieving balance. In it, lack is the anomaly, not the requirement. Because the idea is that the strength of the community relies upon all parts working equally to create the strongest system. It is a side-effect of capitalism that the community is strong or weak, because it works on all individuals being separate, and each working to strengthen only themselves. And hey, if my life is better because the community is a little stronger, then cool.

Yeah, it might be good though to stop this off-topic conversation, though I enjoy it.

[Alive]

Quote by: christibe Communism works to eliminate lack, though.

Capitalism is far better at reducing lack.

When it comes up, something else produces a little more to counter

No, that's what happens in capitalism. If one business or even one industry fails to provide, another will arise to take it's place, because there is profit to be made in fulfilling that need. If there's a severe apple shortage, the prices of other fruits will rise as demand shifts from apples to other fruits. The increased prices will create profit for expanding fruit production, which will in turn lower prices--so people can replace apples with oranges or whatever, and not lack fruit.

This doesn't happen efficiently in communism because there is no incentive for an orange producer to expand production simply because the apple producer failed to produce sufficiently.

In it, lack is the anomaly, not the requirement.

This makes no sense. Lack is a fact of life. No one can have everything they want.

[christibe]

Quote by: Alive Capitalism is far better at reducing lack. No, that's what happens in capitalism. If one business or even one industry fails to provide, another will arise to take it's place, because there is profit to be made in fulfilling that need. If there's a severe apple shortage, the prices of other fruits will rise as demand shifts from apples to other fruits. The increased prices will create profit for expanding fruit production, which will in turn lower prices--so people can replace apples with oranges or whatever, and not lack fruit. This doesn't happen efficiently in communism because there is no incentive for an orange producer to expand production simply because the apple producer failed to produce sufficiently. This makes no sense. Lack is a fact of life. No one can have everything they want.

This is true, that diversity in available goods may be lower in communism, this has been shown in socialist practices.

Lack is indeed a fact of life, but it does make sense within the communist structure somewhat, because it isn't about one person lacking, it is about the system not lacking. And, in a functioning communism, the system not lacking means all the people have what they need and want at the high end of their expectation, because they all input at the high-end of their ability. The incentive is not placed on your own personal benefit, it is that if you give more then that value is added to the system as a whole, it is a creative process and so if the people aren't of the nature to willfully look at ways of making the system more diverse, or constantly seeking ways of improving the quality of life of everyone, then it will grow stagnant. But also, communism relies upon the rejection of capitalism, which in itself requires people both willing and able to overthrow a debt-based currency type system, so they are probably willing enough to constantly raise the bar of the status quo. Communism relies on the character and integrity of the people, whereas capitalism assumes nothing in that regard, and relies on inherent greed as the means for the system to become richer.
It is a different way of looking at the same problem is all. The problem is that there are alot of individuals that want to be in a community somehow, how do we make it work?

I know, and we have seen, the flaws of the communist theory. I'd say we have also seen the flaws of the capitalist theory. Unfortunately, it is difficult to break out of both.

And its gotten late, good night. :)

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: christibe Lack is indeed a fact of life, but it does make sense within the communist structure somewhat, because it isn't about one person lacking, it is about the system not lacking.

Huh? Scarcity has nothing to do with the system, it has to do with there being only so much stuff on the planet. The question is what system best deals with scarcity. And the answer is the system that provides incentives to minimize the effects of scarcity: capitalism.

And, in a functioning communism, the system not lacking means all the people have what they need and want at the high end of their expectation, because they all input at the high-end of their ability.

Why? If I have all that I need and want, why would I input at the high end of my ability? Complacency is the enemy of motivation.

The incentive is not placed on your own personal benefit, it is that if you give more then that value is added to the system as a whole,

Where is the incentive for people to care about the system as a whole?

it is a creative process and so if the people aren't of the nature to willfully look at ways of making the system more diverse, or constantly seeking ways of improving the quality of life of everyone, then it will grow stagnant.

Agreed. And people are not of that nature. So how do you propose to alter human nature, which would be required to make communism work? Why not simply have a system which takes advantage of human nature to provide the "carrot" for people to improve the system, i.e. "improve the system and you will be rewarded with a comfortable life"

Communism relies on the character and integrity of the people, whereas capitalism assumes nothing in that regard, and relies on inherent greed as the means for the system to become richer.

Agreed. And at the risk of invoking Godwin's law, why don't you ask Anne Frank how her reliance on the belief that all people are basically good worked out for her?
It seems better to use the system that functions through human nature, rather then the system that tries to change it.

It is a different way of looking at the same problem is all. The problem is that there are alot of individuals that want to be in a community somehow, how do we make it work?

No, the problem is that there are a limited amount of resources.

I know, and we have seen, the flaws of the communist theory. I'd say we have also seen the flaws of the capitalist theory. Unfortunately, it is difficult to break out of both.

But since communism is a "rising tide lifting all boats" theory of economic gain - everyone gains equally - communism's flaws hurt everyone. You can't make the same argument for capitalism when there are Bill Gates' and Warren Buffets and John D. Rockefellers in the world.

[Technosoul]

I will donate my two cents worth in taxes but wish to clam a three cent deduction. Send me my refund check right away, I can use the loot.

[christibe]

Tivodan

Scarcity has nothing to do with the system, it has to do with there being only so much stuff on the planet. The question is what system best deals with scarcity.

Good, we are defining the problem further from a bunch of people want to live in a community by adding scarcity of resources. Capitalism and Communism are two theories that deal with this. Communism deals with more than just scarcity though, I think.

Why? If I have all that I need and want, why would I input at the high end of my ability? Complacency is the enemy of motivation.

The only reason you have everything that you need/want is because you input at the high-end of your ability, as does everyone else. You get what you give, so to speak, as in capitalism... only it is 'rewarded' differently.

Where is the incentive for people to care about the system as a whole?

Well stated. They don't actually have to care about the system as a whole, but instead they realize that the 'system' is really just an extension of themselves. Abstract, I know... ok, it is like a cycle, I guess. I don't know, I just got off hte phone and now am thinking of something else. :)

Agreed. And people are not of that nature. So how do you propose to alter human nature, which would be required to make communism work? Why not simply have a system which takes advantage of human nature to provide the "carrot" for people to improve the system, i.e. "improve the system and you will be rewarded with a comfortable life"

Definitely. But 'human nature' to the communist might be egalite, whereas 'human nature' to the capitalist might be individuality. And neither has really been 'tested' yet, as neither theories have been perfectly put into practice.

Agreed. And at the risk of invoking Godwin's law, why don't you ask Anne Frank how her reliance on the belief that all people are basically good worked out for her? It seems better to use the system that functions through human nature, rather then the system that tries to change it.

Wow, has this thread gotten so long and off-topic already?!? :) And neither economic system was in practice for Miss Frank, so invocation would be futile. Again, human nature isn't an absolute thing... we don't know if 'greed' is the most absolute thing that motivates human creatures. Also though, even if it is, it could still exist in communism as the driving force... except in communism compared to capitalism your personal greed translates into getting more for yourself as well as everyone else. So really, communism might better support greed than capitalism, since it satisfies the base desire to the benefit of the system.

No, the problem is that there are a limited amount of resources.

Of course! :) But, it is still just different ways of looking at the better defined problem.

But since communism is a "rising tide lifting all boats" theory of economic gain - everyone gains equally - communism's flaws hurt everyone. You can't make the same argument for capitalism when there are Bill Gates' and Warren Buffets and John D. Rockefellers in the world.

Here is the clincher, and it is what brought down all of the attempts at practicing communism. But all of those attempts were not inherently true to the theory, so shouldn't be considered as a model for judging the theory itself. In a functioning communism in line with the theory, the flaws should be very apparent, as in John-Jon here hasn't been contributing what he said he would, let's say his own special brew of beer, but has been taking more than his share of leather goods. Though the people might not mind his inebriated sadomasichist lifestyle (since they're communist hippies after all), they will make him either brew-up or get out, because they can't take the loss of alcohol-saturated fun time. :)

(I thought about saying Trotsky books, but those would probably be 'free' for the taking...)

Communism = Fun
Capitalism = Stress :(

what does this have to do with taxation? ... hehe

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: christibe The only reason you have everything that you need/want is because you input at the high-end of your ability, as does everyone else. You get what you give, so to speak, as in capitalism... only it is 'rewarded' differently.

But why? Why does someone input at the high end of their ability?

Definitely. But 'human nature' to the communist might be egalite, whereas 'human nature' to the capitalist might be individuality. And neither has really been 'tested' yet, as neither theories have been perfectly put into practice.

We don't need to test the theories on a macro scale. We see that human nature lends itself to capitalism every day.
You are sitting in your chair. What makes you get up? You WANT something - a drink, the remote, the bathroom etc. If sitting in the chair is providing you everything you need, you continue sitting. Your wife comes in, she's standing by the fridge. She says "get me a drink". No matter what you do, what you THINK is "get it yourself, you're the one that WANTS it."

WANT is the primary mover of human behavior. And since communism already provides everything a person needs without any attachment to any effort on the person's part, it requires a shift in human nature to work.

In a functioning communism in line with the theory, the flaws should be very apparent, as in John-Jon here hasn't been contributing what he said he would, let's say his own special brew of beer, but has been taking more than his share of leather goods. Though the people might not mind his inebriated sadomasichist lifestyle (since they're communist hippies after all), they will make him either brew-up or get out, because they can't take the loss of alcohol-saturated fun time. :)

Works great in a barn in the woods with a bunch of dope smokers, but how do you make someone "get out" of society?

Communism = Fun Capitalism = Stress :(

In your opinion maybe. But the grass is always greener, isn't it? To me, Communism would be stressful. Communism is basically like being homeless in that your ability to live and be comfortable depends on the generosity of people around you. That's stressful.
What makes Communism so much fun?
I find the sense of accomplishment when I get a paycheck based upon my work to be nice.
In terms of "fun", communism always has to overcome this for me: No matter how much I like my job, if I didn't need/want the money I wouldn't go. That's why it's called a JOB.

what does this have to do with taxation? ... hehe

Who knows? But if you take the last few posts and start a thread so we stop derailing this one, I'll follow you.

[Chris the Chees]

Huh? Scarcity has nothing to do with the system, it has to do with there being only so much stuff on the planet. The question is what system best deals with scarcity. And the answer is the system that provides incentives to minimize the effects of scarcity: capitalism.

Except that more people die of famine now than at any time before. Obviously capitalism deals with the issue of want well in Western countries, but that is at the expense of those in poorer countries.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Except that more people die of famine now than at any time before. Obviously capitalism deals with the issue of want well in Western countries, but that is at the expense of those in poorer countries.

Why is it at their expense? Many countries where famine exists do not have significant capitalism. Take many African countries, for example, where private property rights do not exist and the government can come and bulldoze your business simply because they feel like it.

Capitalism has failed poorer countries simply because it has not been given a chance to flourish there.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Capitalism has failed poorer countries simply because it has not been given a chance to flourish there.

Not to mention that the western capitalist countries have asset stripped the mineral wealth of places like africa. And turn a blind eye to the excessive greed of the dictators so long as they support the the western companies that pay huge bribes to strip those assets. It would seem capitalism flourishes quite well in africa if it described as it has been here based on greed and individual selfishness.