Ben No.3

stealing implies ownership

Why though? I find large sums of inheritance very difficult if not impossible to justify. Anyone up for inheriting a large amount of money (over a million in this case) will have in all likelihood had access to a very high level of education and societal connectivity, giving him much of a head start and, realistically, practically guaranteeing him at leat a comfortable life. Is it really that far of a shot to then propose to use the remaining wealth to give other, less lucky people access to at least some level of good education? The proposed inheritance model would benefit most members of society, while at the same time generating enormous amounts of money for the state to use. And it is not like I am taking away everything from the rich kids... if your parents inherent you 11 million, you still get 2.5 million which is a hell of a lot of money. And if it causes rich people to just go on huge shopping sprees in their late years, that’s not bad either - rather have the cash fluctuating through the markets than sitting around (at least that is how I have understood this matter in regards to the production of wealth in capitalism, do correct me if I’m wrong). Essentially I guess my argument boils down to whoever is affected by the proposed tax is in no situation where he’d require this amount of money, while it is desperately needed elsewhere. And it’s not exactly like I’m leaving him moneyless either.

This guy should be fired immediately for stupidity of the highest order.Why? He’s explaining his job; part of which is to disobey illegal orders.Thing is is it "illegal" or is it "I don't want to"? What would make an order like that illegal or legal?Isn't this the reason why high priority type actions are kept from the people pushing the button like the dropping of the atom bomb. I’m not familiar with US military law; but I see no reason not to trust him?

This guy should be fired immediately for stupidity of the highest order.Why? He’s explaining his job; part of which is to disobey illegal orders.

a dead persons money volo. They’re dead. They don’t care.What makes your existence more important? You'll be joining soon enough. Maybe they "suffered" more in earning those millions than you ever will. Never ceases to amaze how righteous people become when it comes to someone else's money. My existence would be more important simply because I have one while they don’t anymore. Again, they’re dead.Channeling the inner Fuhrer I see. do explain to me how the property rights of a dead person are more important than, say, a child’s access to education, a functioning subway train, or a well kept street.

a dead persons money volo. They’re dead. They don’t care.What makes your existence more important? You'll be joining soon enough. Maybe they "suffered" more in earning those millions than you ever will. Never ceases to amaze how righteous people become when it comes to someone else's money. My existence would be more important simply because I have one while they don’t anymore. Again, they’re dead.

a dead persons money volo. They’re dead. They don’t care.

So you support throwing families to streets because Grandpa who owned the house died.How German of you. It isn't 85% on the million, it is 85% on every cent after the million. So if the house is worth $1.1 million, you would pay $85,000, I assume. that’s the idea

He's absolutely right, if you don't start out with over a million you've essentially been thrown out on the street.If you don't have cash for paying the tax for inherited property which is the house you live in, then you go out on the street. Socialism 101. I think a high number of homeless people is not amongst the actually pretty long lost of grave accusations you can make against historical socialism.

Inheritance is one of these things that can be easily made to benefit the largest part of society while maintaining a good tax income for the state. Say, no tax on the first million and 85% on every further cent. Not just cash; total capital. An easy fix that would certainly maintain incentive for most while equipping the state with enourmous amounts of money (just think about what we could do if, say, bill gates died). Classic social democracy. Seriously, if your children would inherent more than one million total, they almost definitely had the education and preparation to give them a significant head start anyway. Have them make their own luck now.

This just in from an official investigation in Australia: So on top of being 24-times more likely to be incarcerated (while posing 3% of the population), aboriginal teens in Australia are apparently systematically tortured in the youth prison of Don Dole. Some fun. http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/aborigines-australien-101.html

a studied teacher being good with children? Marvellous

I assumed I perverted what was being said enough to mark it as a joke. Paradoxically, I think that made it worse. Anyway, won’t happen again

To Kill a Mockingbird...with a chainsaw. go set a watchman... with a chainsaw

I don't think there has ever been a system that is even just 10% failure proof.Fixed thatThat was exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you for pointing out the obvious you’re welcome 'Fixed it for you' is usually done in good humor and I don't feel like you're doing it that way here at this moment, so cut it out will you. Edit: Gfted1, your image isn't showing up for me, not even a broken image image. sorry if I offended you, that wasn’t my intention. I was attempting to “cover” my mistakes with re-editing what has been said to a point where it doesn’t have to do anything with the actual course of events. All in good socialist tradition, you know... Seriously though, it was never my intention to offend you. Sorry if it came across like that.

I don't think there has ever been a system that is even just 10% failure proof.Fixed thatThat was exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you for pointing out the obvious you’re welcome

I don't think there has ever been a system that is even just 10% failure proof.Fixed that

ok.... sorry bout that

I’m genuinely sorry, but I’m confused... is this directed towards me?

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before. But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not. Since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with capital, who invest his capital and bears all the risk, gives the tools, materials etc. and handles all the other costs, and you have a guy who bears no risks and only contributes his time and skill. But to Ben and you the former one is a thief. Go figure since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with labour power, who has no choice but to sell this labour power, who tries to provide for a family (food stamps don’t buy diapers), who gives the majority of his wake time and certainly his energy into producing capital with his labour power; and you have a guy who takes said capital. But to Guard Dog and you the latter one isn’t a thief. Go figure Ben, what makes a sales transaction not a robbery? Consent. What makes sex not a rape? Consent. What makes employment not slavery? Consent. If the employee feels he's getting a bad deal from the employer then the employee is free to go sell his labor to someone else. He's also free to organize with the other employees and bargain collectively with the employer. If I can't find enough miners to dig up my coal for the wages I'm offering then I have two choices: offer higher wages or pick up a shovel. Employment is an agreement both sides enter into freely and can leave freely. Buy the way, you were not free to quit or even choose your job or place of employment in the places where real communism was practiced. You’re freedom is not free at all. If I’m poor, I merely have the choice of who I will beg to rob me. If I am rich, I merely have the choice of which tools to use to stay rich. Either way, it is for both a largely pointless endeavour in a quest to lead a life they never had a choice to. Whether you have nothing, little or much, the capitalist system makes you a servant of your material conditions. Essentially, I am fully aware of the shortcomings and disasters caused by the communist regimes of the past. I am sure you are too. But tell me Guard Dog, how much time have you spend exploring the shortcomings and disasters caused by capitalism? Yep. Capitalism is the worst system in the world. Except for all the others. But you know what it does offer? A path to success that allows even the poorest to climb the ladder to success. I know because I see a guy who did it every day in the mirror. the proof of how good a system is is the one guy out of a thousand who, against all odds and (let’s be honest) largely due to luck (not that I don’t trust your skill, work ethic, or talent; but I do believe that amongst the many poor of America there have to be more people like you who remain poor) who used what he gained to isolate himself from said system as far away as possible to him somewhere on a lonely farm?

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before. But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not. Since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with capital, who invest his capital and bears all the risk, gives the tools, materials etc. and handles all the other costs, and you have a guy who bears no risks and only contributes his time and skill. But to Ben and you the former one is a thief. Go figure since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with labour power, who has no choice but to sell this labour power, who tries to provide for a family (food stamps don’t buy diapers), who gives the majority of his wake time and certainly his energy into producing capital with his labour power; and you have a guy who takes said capital. But to Guard Dog and you the latter one isn’t a thief. Go figure Ben, what makes a sales transaction not a robbery? Consent. What makes sex not a rape? Consent. What makes employment not slavery? Consent. If the employee feels he's getting a bad deal from the employer then the employee is free to go sell his labor to someone else. He's also free to organize with the other employees and bargain collectively with the employer. If I can't find enough miners to dig up my coal for the wages I'm offering then I have two choices: offer higher wages or pick up a shovel. Employment is an agreement both sides enter into freely and can leave freely. Buy the way, you were not free to quit or even choose your job or place of employment in the places where real communism was practiced. You’re freedom is not free at all. If I’m poor, I merely have the choice of who I will beg to rob me. If I am rich, I merely have the choice of which tools to use to stay rich. Either way, it is for both a largely pointless endeavour in a quest to lead a life they never had a choice to. Whether you have nothing, little or much, the capitalist system makes you a servant of your material conditions. Essentially, a live defined by fear and alienation from your work, your surroundings, your friends, your life, yourself. I am fully aware of the shortcomings and disasters caused by the communist regimes of the past. I am sure you are too. But tell me Guard Dog, how much time have you spend exploring the shortcomings and disasters caused by capitalism? Genuine question, how do you respond to the philosophical worries that one might have about the capitalist system? What do you tell the student who visits a school that teaches him how to pass test and a university that teaches him how to get a degree when he tries to get a grasp on the world and hasn’t learned a thing in his life?

A man should be anything but “a man”. Masculinity, and femininity for that matter, are a certain set of character attributes associated with gender. Thereby, these character attributes are inherently deterministic and therefore limit those identifying with them in their thought and thereby their will to action. These categories, masculine and feminine, have the same sort of appeal to anyone uncertain about himself as any deterministic philosophy does: It gives certainty in exchange for obedience. And while many may realise the inherent absurdity of attaching such extremely specific character attributes as “takes care of the family in financial matters” or “takes care of the family in educational matters” to a persons genitals, the comfort these categories offer can be difficult to lay off. Regardless however, the degree of obedience they require, especially if followed through, in exchange for that comfort is too great to allow us to consider those who take on these categories as free individuals by any means. Therefore, any man should not and never resort to identifying himself as “a man”, for this would mean that he has, albeit (perhaps) willingly, sacrificed an essential human trait: The free thought. The same does of course applies to women in regards to femininity.

from the life of a good-for-nothing with a chainsaw

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before. But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not. Since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with capital, who invest his capital and bears all the risk, gives the tools, materials etc. and handles all the other costs, and you have a guy who bears no risks and only contributes his time and skill. But to Ben and you the former one is a thief. Go figure since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with labour power, who has no choice but to sell this labour power, who tries to provide for a family (food stamps don’t buy diapers), who gives the majority of his wake time and certainly his energy into producing capital with his labour power; and you have a guy who takes said capital. But to Guard Dog and you the latter one isn’t a thief. Go figure

Condolences!