If 100 people needs to die to save 100000 people..

[metadigital]

What about toys used for learning aids?

[Laozi]

There are some things that need to be socialized in my opinion.  Things like what the population needs as a whole on a constant basis.  Utilities, medical care, and the like.  Basic needs being fulfilled so of thing.  Extra stuff like entertainment, toys, luxuries, and the like should be held privately in a competitive market for they aren't needed for basic human living.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What do you mean by "need to be socialist"? Purchased by the government and then distributed in some way?

[taks]

There are some things that need to be socialized in my opinion.  Things like what the population needs as a whole on a constant basis.  Utilities, medical care, and the like.  Basic needs being fulfilled so of thing. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

just because compassionates such as yourself (and any other holding socialist views) think this is reason enough to implement it, doesn't mean it can work. the unfortunate fact is that ideals cannot exist in the real world simply because of human will. demand is impossible to counter in a socialist system, even if it is implemented only for a single aspect, such as health care. "partial" socialism is probably feeding the health-care expansion as it is (referred to as partial because of HMOs and government restrictions). if left to its own devices, it would track with demand (as every other capitalist aspect does) and follow inflation.

 

socialism creates its own excuse for existence, before bankrupting itself.

 

taks

Edited January 28, 2007 by taks

[Sand]

Purchased, distributed, owned by the government given freely or at cost to the public.

[metadigital]

HI-larious juxtaposition.

[Rosbjerg]

And those 100 people hates those other 100,000 people, do those 100 people have the right to defend themselves?

 

All I'm asking for is if they have the moral right to try to defend themselves, whether it is a lost cause or not.

 

I don't think anyone here morally disagrees with the 100 (red. Iraqies) defending themselves.. although many would probably disagree from either a political/religious or pragmatic viewpoint..

 

 

 

also a tougher moral dilemma usually involves the ones you ask and a tangible number of other people to sacrifised ..

 

like this one:

 

let's say you were in a control room in a trainstation - you suddenly see a train approaching a Y split - on one of the tracks 5 men are reparing a signal (all wearing headphones which means they can't her the train) and on the other track a single man is inspecting the rails (also wearing headphones).. none of them are noticing, or will notice, the approaching train.. the train will hit the five men unless you redirect it.. which only requires you to psuh a single button..

 

what will you do?

Edited January 28, 2007 by Rosbjerg

[Sand]

Of course to pay for this service there would be a need of increased taxes or a major change in the tax law. Frankly I would like to deep six the IRS and have our government get its money via a federal sales tax. Increase all taxable items 5 cents on the dollar, more for expensive luxury items (maybe 15 cents on the dollar for anything above $150,000).

[Arkan]

Of course to pay for this service there would be a need of increased taxes or a major change in the tax law.  Frankly I would like to deep six the IRS and have our government get its money via a federal sales tax.  Increase all taxable items 5 cents on the dollar, more for expensive luxury items (maybe 15 cents on the dollar for anything above $150,000).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Good luck with that.

[Sand]

Good luck with what? I know it will never happen.

[alanschu]

Why specifically those values? Why 5%, and 15%?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

If 100 people needs to die to save 100000 people...

 

I'd volunteer to disappear.

[Sand]

Why specifically those values?  Why 5%, and 15%?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They seem to be a reasonable numbers. I would think that in a capitalistic consumer based society that the US is this would be the optimal way for the government to get their money. I think it would be far more efficient than the IRS system as the taxpayers would have the illusion of making more money thusly spend more money, and the government would get their taxes directly, and we would able to eliminate the costly and inefficient institutions like the IRS. It would save time and money.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Sand

[taks]

Frankly I would like to deep six the IRS and have our government get its money via a federal sales tax. Increase all taxable items 5 cents on the dollar, more for expensive luxury items (maybe 15 cents on the dollar for anything above $150,000).

it would actually take in the neighborhood of 20% for a sales tax to work. people on the low-end of the tax bracket now don't really realize how much the top 10% is paying overall (the nonsense coming out of trolls such as hillary about getting rid of the "tax-breaks for the rich" is a joke... they're paying almost all of it, of course they benefit from tax breaks more than the poor).

 

anyway, at the very least, a sales tax could not be questioned on constitutional grounds and it would certainly get rid of the irs. also, it is the only fair way to tax people, i.e. via their usage not their income. the poor would get breaks simply because they are not buying as much. if you want to pay less in taxes, spend less on non-essential items (that means no tax on food, etc.)

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

in Denmark we pay 25% in turnover taxes.. from food to cars and clothing..

 

and we still pay 50% in taxes on our income.. so it won't generate as much income as you might think..

Edited January 29, 2007 by Rosbjerg

[metadigital]

And those 100 people hates those other 100,000 people, do those 100 people have the right to defend themselves?

 

All I'm asking for is if they have the moral right to try to defend themselves, whether it is a lost cause or not.

 

I don't think anyone here morally disagrees with the 100 (red. Iraqies) defending themselves.. although many would probably disagree from either a political/religious or pragmatic viewpoint..

 

 

 

also a tougher moral dilemma usually involves the ones you ask and a tangible number of other people to sacrifised ..

 

like this one:

 

let's say you were in a control room in a trainstation - you suddenly see a train approaching a Y split - on one of the tracks 5 men are reparing a signal (all wearing headphones which means they can't her the train) and on the other track a single man is inspecting the rails (also wearing headphones).. none of them are noticing, or will notice, the approaching train.. the train will hit the five men unless you redirect it.. which only requires you to psuh a single button..

 

what will you do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stop the train, of course. ^_^

[Sand]

The problem there is is that trains don't stop on a dime. I would redirect, apply the breaks and blare the horns.

[metadigital]

As the train is empty of people, I would derail it.

[Gfted1]

in Denmark we pay 25% in turnover taxes.. from food to cars and clothing..

 

and we still pay 50% in taxes on our income.. so it won't generate as much income as you might think..

 

 

Thats mind boggling.

[Rosbjerg]

and to think we are still some of the richest people on Earth is even more mind boggling.. ^_^

 

---

 

About the train:

Did I forget to mention that you can't stop it? either you do nothing and 5 people die or you take action and 1 person die..

[metadigital]

Listen, you do your Kobayashi Maru and I'll circumvent it with my own initiative, and get a special commendation

[Rosbjerg]

Listen, you do your Kobayashi Maru and I'll circumvent it with my own initiative, and get a special commendation. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sorry it's not possible to cheat the computer in this case.. the result - Earth is destroyed.. thank you for playing..

 

Game over..

[Surreptishus]

I would go for the branch that has the five guys, in order to get the 5+ Super splatter death multiplier bonus.

[kumquatq3]

and to think we are still some of the richest people on Earth is even more mind boggling.. ^_^

 

Damn that Luxembourg

[taks]

in Denmark we pay 25% in turnover taxes.. from food to cars and clothing..

 

and we still pay 50% in taxes on our income.. so it won't generate as much income as you might think..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it works in the US because we simply spend more. also, the myth is that increased income tax actually increases tax revenues 1:1... not true. low income tax and (relatively) high sales tax would do well. plus, the US doesn't have nearly as much government benefits as denmark.

 

taks

[Jorian Drake]

And those 100 people hates those other 100,000 people, do those 100 people have the right to defend themselves?

 

All I'm asking for is if they have the moral right to try to defend themselves, whether it is a lost cause or not.

 

I don't think anyone here morally disagrees with the 100 (red. Iraqies) defending themselves.. although many would probably disagree from either a political/religious or pragmatic viewpoint..

 

 

 

also a tougher moral dilemma usually involves the ones you ask and a tangible number of other people to sacrifised ..

 

like this one:

 

let's say you were in a control room in a trainstation - you suddenly see a train approaching a Y split - on one of the tracks 5 men are reparing a signal (all wearing headphones which means they can't her the train) and on the other track a single man is inspecting the rails (also wearing headphones).. none of them are noticing, or will notice, the approaching train.. the train will hit the five men unless you redirect it.. which only requires you to psuh a single button..

 

what will you do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Push the STOP TRAIN button

 

 

 

EDIT: I see Meta had the same idea

Edited January 30, 2007 by jorian