Obama / FICA taxes: "how do you like me now?"

[dbucfan]

Well - there closer to real life version found the collectivist/communists starving millions to death as a part of their 'plans'.  Hard to use starvation in example and not think USSR or Communist China.  Some even offer that communists world wide have plans for population control, purity... pick an offensive noun... which include euthanasia/genocide/murder... again pick or add a term. So there is a odd ill fit provided by the example. 

[John Galt?]

Here's another question for you. Two groups are vying for supremacy on a deserted island. One group (A) is comprised of two individuals who are fit and well nourished, and two individuals who live off of the scraps that are left by the other two. They only eat the leftovers, and when there are none, they don't eat at all. The other group (B) is made up of four individuals who equally share resources with one another. While none of them are as fit and well nourished as the two leaders of the other group, they are all far more nourished than the other two individuals in the other group. The two groups clash. Who wins supremacy of the island?

Group A does because at some point the hardest working and best hunting member of group B will realize the restraints of collectivism are holding him back and he will defect and immigrate to the less restrictive group A. Then the clash will be 5 vs 3, A wins.

Wrong. Group B wins. The hardest working and best hunting member of group B will choose to maintain his current social order rather than risk being subjugated by the strong members of group A, while the two starving members of group A have absolutely no reason to maintain their current social order, thus will immigrate to group B. 6 vs 2, group B wins.

Yours is a nice story, but there is a history of human social behavior that suggests it is also a fallacy.

Sorry but I don't recall lots of highly regarded scientists defecting the US and going to the USSR. I don't recall thousands getting on rafts and paddling across the Florida Straights for Cuba. I don't recall tens of thousands sneaking from West Germany to the East. And I don't recall the US building a wall in Berlin to stop defections.

[John Galt?]

Here's another question for you. Two groups are vying for supremacy on a deserted island. One group is comprised of two individuals who are fit and well nourished, and two individuals who live off of the scraps that are left by the other two. They only eat the leftovers, and when there are none, they don't eat at all. The other group is made up of four individuals who equally share resources with one another. While none of them are as fit and well nourished as the two leaders of the other group, they are all far more nourished than the other two individuals in the other group. The two groups clash. Who wins supremacy of the island?

What if the 2 living off scraps in group A ae doing so because the couldn't be arsed to get off their ass and go hunting. Should the other 2 fit ones sacrifce their share of the food at their expense,  so the other 2 can get their fair share?

What would more likely happen is the top 2 hunters in the first group would become even better hunters thus more scraps and they would encourage the lesser 2 that "since you can't hunt can you at least make some spears, arrows, etc. so we have more time to hunt?". While at group B, the top 2 would get weaker because by sharing all the food, there isn't enough to make the top 2 stronger and they would become less effective hunters creating a downward spiral until eventually group B had to reduce it's ranks (population control-see Communist China/Stalinist USSR)

[John Galt?]

Here's another question for you. Two groups are vying for supremacy on a deserted island. One group (A) is comprised of two individuals who are fit and well nourished, and two individuals who live off of the scraps that are left by the other two. They only eat the leftovers, and when there are none, they don't eat at all. The other group (B) is made up of four individuals who equally share resources with one another. While none of them are as fit and well nourished as the two leaders of the other group, they are all far more nourished than the other two individuals in the other group. The two groups clash. Who wins supremacy of the island?

Group A does because at some point the hardest working and best hunting member of group B will realize the restraints of collectivism are holding him back and he will defect and immigrate to the less restrictive group A. Then the clash will be 5 vs 3, A wins.

Wrong. Group B wins. The hardest working and best hunting member of group B will choose to maintain his current social order rather than risk being subjugated by the strong members of group A, while the two starving members of group A have absolutely no reason to maintain their current social order, thus will immigrate to group B. 6 vs 2, group B wins.

Yours is a nice story, but there is a history of human social behavior that suggests it is also a fallacy.

Quickly going thru a little history, lets look at the great civilizations based on a market/trade system and those based on a collective system.

Market System

Phoenicia- 1500 BC- 500BC
Achaemenid Persian Empire 550BC-336BC
Seleucid Empire 312 BC- 63BC
Roman Republic 509BC-35BC
Roman Empire 27BC - 476 AD
Republic of Venice 697 AD -1797
Spanish Empire
British Empire
USA


Collectivist before the 20th century

.....
.....
.....

(sound of crickets )

[Dolorous Jason]

Here's another question for you. Two groups are vying for supremacy on a deserted island. One group (A) is comprised of two individuals who are fit and well nourished, and two individuals who live off of the scraps that are left by the other two. They only eat the leftovers, and when there are none, they don't eat at all. The other group (B) is made up of four individuals who equally share resources with one another. While none of them are as fit and well nourished as the two leaders of the other group, they are all far more nourished than the other two individuals in the other group. The two groups clash. Who wins supremacy of the island?

Group A does because at some point the hardest working and best hunting member of group B will realize the restraints of collectivism are holding him back and he will defect and immigrate to the less restrictive group A. Then the clash will be 5 vs 3, A wins.

Wrong. Group B wins. The hardest working and best hunting member of group B will choose to maintain his current social order rather than risk being subjugated by the strong members of group A, while the two starving members of group A have absolutely no reason to maintain their current social order, thus will immigrate to group B. 6 vs 2, group B wins.

Yours is a nice story, but there is a history of human social behavior that suggests it is also a fallacy.

Sorry but I don't recall lots of highly regarded scientists defecting the US and going to the USSR. I don't recall thousands getting on rafts and paddling across the Florida Straights for Cuba. I don't recall tens of thousands sneaking from West Germany to the East. And I don't recall the US building a wall in Berlin to stop defections.

LOL...Yeah ,  I don't seem to recall those occurances in the "history of human social behavior" either ....

[dbucfan]

Mao's great leap starved from 45-70 MILLION.  Stalin managed the disappearance/murder/deportation of 10-15 MILLION.  How odd for a left wing progressive/socialist/communist/collectivist to elect to use foods and hunger in an example. 

[CBWx2]

Here's another question for you. Two groups are vying for supremacy on a deserted island. One group (A) is comprised of two individuals who are fit and well nourished, and two individuals who live off of the scraps that are left by the other two. They only eat the leftovers, and when there are none, they don't eat at all. The other group (B) is made up of four individuals who equally share resources with one another. While none of them are as fit and well nourished as the two leaders of the other group, they are all far more nourished than the other two individuals in the other group. The two groups clash. Who wins supremacy of the island?

Group A does because at some point the hardest working and best hunting member of group B will realize the restraints of collectivism are holding him back and he will defect and immigrate to the less restrictive group A. Then the clash will be 5 vs 3, A wins.

Wrong. Group B wins. The hardest working and best hunting member of group B will choose to maintain his current social order rather than risk being subjugated by the strong members of group A, while the two starving members of group A have absolutely no reason to maintain their current social order, thus will immigrate to group B. 6 vs 2, group B wins.

Yours is a nice story, but there is a history of human social behavior that suggests it is also a fallacy.

Sorry but I don't recall lots of highly regarded scientists defecting the US and going to the USSR. I don't recall thousands getting on rafts and paddling across the Florida Straights for Cuba. I don't recall tens of thousands sneaking from West Germany to the East. And I don't recall the US building a wall in Berlin to stop defections.

And therein lies the problem with your assertions. The USSR, China, and Cuba are not communist countries. They aren't egalitarian societies. They are socialist dictatorships. Any country under any type of authoritarian regime is, by nature, the exact opposite of Marxian communism. The reason those societies are doomed to fail is the same reason that your utopia would be doomed to failure, and that is that they do not meet the needs of the people who live within them.

If you want a picture of how democratic socialism or egalitarianism is supposed to work, take a look at Germany and the Scandinavian countries in Europe.

[CBWx2]

Here's another question for you. Two groups are vying for supremacy on a deserted island. One group is comprised of two individuals who are fit and well nourished, and two individuals who live off of the scraps that are left by the other two. They only eat the leftovers, and when there are none, they don't eat at all. The other group is made up of four individuals who equally share resources with one another. While none of them are as fit and well nourished as the two leaders of the other group, they are all far more nourished than the other two individuals in the other group. The two groups clash. Who wins supremacy of the island?

What if the 2 living off scraps in group A ae doing so because the couldn't be arsed to get off their ass and go hunting. Should the other 2 fit ones sacrifce their share of the food at their expense,  so the other 2 can get their fair share?

What would more likely happen is the top 2 hunters in the first group would become even better hunters thus more scraps and they would encourage the lesser 2 that "since you can't hunt can you at least make some spears, arrows, etc. so we have more time to hunt?". While at group B, the top 2 would get weaker because by sharing all the food, there isn't enough to make the top 2 stronger and they would become less effective hunters creating a downward spiral until eventually group B had to reduce it's ranks (population control-see Communist China/Stalinist USSR)

I'd love to try whatever it is you are smoking. That stuff must be GOOD!!!

[deadzone]

There's some spin on the original topic here boys..............

[olafberserker]

welcome to any thread with cbw ......

[CBWx2]

Here's another question for you. Two groups are vying for supremacy on a deserted island. One group (A) is comprised of two individuals who are fit and well nourished, and two individuals who live off of the scraps that are left by the other two. They only eat the leftovers, and when there are none, they don't eat at all. The other group (B) is made up of four individuals who equally share resources with one another. While none of them are as fit and well nourished as the two leaders of the other group, they are all far more nourished than the other two individuals in the other group. The two groups clash. Who wins supremacy of the island?

Group A does because at some point the hardest working and best hunting member of group B will realize the restraints of collectivism are holding him back and he will defect and immigrate to the less restrictive group A. Then the clash will be 5 vs 3, A wins.

Wrong. Group B wins. The hardest working and best hunting member of group B will choose to maintain his current social order rather than risk being subjugated by the strong members of group A, while the two starving members of group A have absolutely no reason to maintain their current social order, thus will immigrate to group B. 6 vs 2, group B wins.

Yours is a nice story, but there is a history of human social behavior that suggests it is also a fallacy.

Quickly going thru a little history, lets look at the great civilizations based on a market/trade system and those based on a collective system.

Market System

Phoenicia- 1500 BC- 500BC
Achaemenid Persian Empire 550BC-336BC
Seleucid Empire 312 BC- 63BC
Roman Republic 509BC-35BC
Roman Empire 27BC - 476 AD
Republic of Venice 697 AD -1797
Spanish Empire
British Empire
USA


Collectivist before the 20th century

.....
.....
.....

(sound of crickets )

More pulling of things out of ones ass, I see. What does having a market system have to do with whether or not a society is collectivist?

Any society is collectivist to a certain degree. Social evolution has nothing to do with markets or trade. That is an economic construct, not a social one. What social evolution states is that societies that are more interdependent are socially stronger than societies that are less interdependent. When societies are comprised of small, independent systems that are all in competition with one another for resources, they are less strong, and less capable of lasting stability, because the less reliance there is on the larger social structure, the less reason there is to maintain it.

What has escaped your consciousness is if you look at each of those societies listed, each ones undoing can be directly attributed to a fractured or inadequate social construct. I don't have the time or patience to go through each one, but needless to say, each saw their collapse come by way of either being supplanted by a more cohesive society or by insurrections from a discontent populace, which is the sign of an insufficient social structure.

[CBWx2]

Also, one of the reasons that the USA exists in it's current form as opposed to the more fractured form in which it existed under the Articles of Confederation is because the founders knew that the only way for the country to last was for it to be unified under a strong central government. Having 50 states that operated autonomously would have assuredly led to the collapse of the country long before you and I would be having this debate.

[dbucfan]

this seems a good place to plant mushrooms

[Al Bundy]

Ok.. I have one question. Since when did Cheetahs start eating cheeseburgers?

[Chief Joseph]

Two things led to this: the passage of the Dem's bill to have them included as voters, and Obama's new 'Cheeseburger and a Phone' incentive program.