Individualism vs collectivism

[Luckyone]

You might have heard these two words before. They center around whether society places emphasis on the individual or society as a whole.

Individualism is often associated with freedom. After all, authoritarian states tend to justify the curbing of freedoms by saying that it's for the greater good of society. The underlying idea behind individualism is that everyone should be themselves. Capitalism is based on this principle as the economy is in private hands. Pro capitalism advocates point out that the free market allows people's needs to be met. As Adam Smith put it:


The problem becomes when people act in their self interests at the expense of society. One example would be externalities.

Adam Smith also had this to say

If there's one thing he opposed more than any other, it was rent seeking which is when people increase their wealth without creating it (in other words, they took it from someone else). Examples include lobbying for laws that favor you at the expense of others, engaging in anti-competitive practices which put competitors out of business, living off of government handouts when you're capable of working, and accepting bribes. Rent seeking is basically stealing from society. Smith pointed out that people will seek to increase their wealth and take the path of least resistance to do so. If that path is one that involves knowing the right people or living on handouts, they're gonna be less likely to produce wealth.

This is not to say that individualism itself is problematic but rather that hyperindividualism, the lack of the recognition of a collective good, leads to problems. This is a big problem with the American conservative midset. They only see things through an individualist lens and are less likely to see things through a systemic lens. Margaret Thatcher once said that there is no such thing as society. Ayn Rand took it much further and stated that not only does the collective good not exist but also that it is immoral to be selfless.

Of course, there are issues with taking collectivism too far such as leaving no room for individual freedom. in order to have a good society, we need a balance.

All I can say is that winning means more to more people when it is done as a team rather than done as an individual.

 

[bave]

All I can say is that winning means more to more people when it is done as a team rather than done as an individual.

No one wants to carry the team to receive less recognition. The best example is your picture, did they get paid the same? There is no better example of capitalism and professional sports. You are paying people extreme amounts of money for an entirely non-productive skill and it is entirely pay-for-performance.

The best quote I have heard this theory is, communism in the family, socialisms in the community, capitalism everywhere else. Meaning, people are willing to make sacrifices for people they have a relationship and a duty to and that they can enforce standards upon. When you get to the nebulous take from me to help someone else, people buck.

 

[Luckyone]

No one wants to carry the team to receive less recognition. The best example is your picture, did they get paid the same? There is no better example of capitalism and professional sports. You are paying people extreme amounts of money for an entirely non-productive skill and it is entirely pay-for-performance.

The best quote I have heard this theory is, communism in the family, socialisms in the community, capitalism everywhere else. Meaning, people are willing to make sacrifices for people they have a relationship and a duty to and that they can enforce standards upon. When you get to the nebulous take from me to help someone else, people buck.

I have never said (or thought) that talent should not be paid a premium. It should be. Nonetheless, like everything in life, extremes do not work.

Would a team be a winner with only 1 player? If the top player was paid millions of dollars and the rest of the team be paid not even livable wages, would the team work together and win?

 

[bave]

I have never said (or thought) that talent should not be paid a premium. It should be. Nonetheless, like everything in life, extremes do not work.

Would a team be a winner with only 1 player? If the top player was paid millions of dollars and the rest of the team be paid not even livable wages, would the team work together and win?

Loaded question. Depends on what you define as a livable wage. If the wages were truly unlivable, then obviously it wouldn't work because people would die, but we both know that's not the definition you mean.

When you go into an operating room you will have 5-6 people there for an open heart surgery. A CT surgeon, an anesthesiologist, and a handful of scrub techs and nurses. The CT surgeon makes $1MM/yr, the anesthesiologist makes $400k/yr, the rest make fractions of that. There is a huge income disparity, inequality if you will. Does the team still work? Yup. You know why? Because despite the inequality the lower income side of that spectrum is still being paid appropriately as it is voluntary. You should go have heart surgery in a situation where there is no inequality, I would be interesting in the outcome.

 

[j brown's body]

It seems silly to not think of market capitalism as a form of collectivism. It just has all its negative aspects. but none of its positive ones.

"...today’s economy is a collectivist enterprise, insofar as collectivism elevates the good of the aggregate and the organization over that of individual human beings. Get past the well-crafted agitprop, and we see that corporate capitalism is all about subsuming the particular will of an individual to that of the institution. The institutions vary: a monopolistic corporation, a nonprofit charity, an arm of government, the police. But in each, the individual is actually helpless and powerless, with the needs, wants, and will of the larger entity taking priority. Amazon workers work for Amazon: They don’t set the rules of their own workplace, that’s done from above. They don’t own the company, they don’t get to say what it does. And Amazon in particular is a pioneer in sacrificing the sanctity (and dignity) of the individual to the company. The employees serve the corporation, rather than the other way around.

This suppression and subjugation of individuals is not new. It has been the norm for much of settled agrarian history. Capitalism descends from a long lineage of economic systems that put individuals in the service of the collective. They have been called different things, but oligarchy by any other name is just as cruel, and the existence of a laboring underclass has been a constant.

Today, precarious, underemployed, low-wage workers toil at the whim of management. Should they displease management, they lose their means of feeding themselves and their children (43% of American children are in low-income families with this precarious situation). Their circumstances force them into serving faithfully and loyally for the good of the company, subsuming their individual wills and wants to the will of the larger entity. The difference between a corporate team-building retreat and a political reeducation camp is in only the level of outright coercion, not in the level of collectivist thinking. Yet even in communist societies, we didn’t see workers tattooing tributes to their employer on their bodies.

It’s not just the people on the bottom end who feel the collectivizing force of capitalism. Even affluent Wall Street quants and traders regularly work 18-hour days to maintain their place at Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs, setting aside their will for that of the partners. They pursue a promise of future personal autonomy that, for most, will never arrive. Professional, white-collar workers at nonprofits often work similarly long days—though for much less pay—at the whim of their funders, most of whom come from a small group of super wealthy foundations. Many nonprofits “depend on large numbers of their lowest-paid staff working unpaid overtime hours,” according to reporting in the Atlantic. I can attest, from my experience in both nonprofits and in other low-wage labor, to the rampant burnout and exploitation that occurs when workers are expected to deny their individual will and well-being for the good of the organization—not even for the cause."

Link

 

[bave]

It seems silly to not think of market capitalism as a form of collectivism. It just has all its negative aspects. but none of its positive ones.

"...today’s economy is a collectivist enterprise, insofar as collectivism elevates the good of the aggregate and the organization over that of individual human beings. Get past the well-crafted agitprop, and we see that corporate capitalism is all about subsuming the particular will of an individual to that of the institution. The institutions vary: a monopolistic corporation, a nonprofit charity, an arm of government, the police. But in each, the individual is actually helpless and powerless, with the needs, wants, and will of the larger entity taking priority. Amazon workers work for Amazon: They don’t set the rules of their own workplace, that’s done from above. They don’t own the company, they don’t get to say what it does. And Amazon in particular is a pioneer in sacrificing the sanctity (and dignity) of the individual to the company. The employees serve the corporation, rather than the other way around.

This suppression and subjugation of individuals is not new. It has been the norm for much of settled agrarian history. Capitalism descends from a long lineage of economic systems that put individuals in the service of the collective. They have been called different things, but oligarchy by any other name is just as cruel, and the existence of a laboring underclass has been a constant.

Today, precarious, underemployed, low-wage workers toil at the whim of management. Should they displease management, they lose their means of feeding themselves and their children (43% of American children are in low-income families with this precarious situation). Their circumstances force them into serving faithfully and loyally for the good of the company, subsuming their individual wills and wants to the will of the larger entity. The difference between a corporate team-building retreat and a political reeducation camp is in only the level of outright coercion, not in the level of collectivist thinking. Yet even in communist societies, we didn’t see workers tattooing tributes to their employer on their bodies.

It’s not just the people on the bottom end who feel the collectivizing force of capitalism. Even affluent Wall Street quants and traders regularly work 18-hour days to maintain their place at Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs, setting aside their will for that of the partners. They pursue a promise of future personal autonomy that, for most, will never arrive. Professional, white-collar workers at nonprofits often work similarly long days—though for much less pay—at the whim of their funders, most of whom come from a small group of super wealthy foundations. Many nonprofits “depend on large numbers of their lowest-paid staff working unpaid overtime hours,” according to reporting in the Atlantic. I can attest, from my experience in both nonprofits and in other low-wage labor, to the rampant burnout and exploitation that occurs when workers are expected to deny their individual will and well-being for the good of the organization—not even for the cause."

Link

GMAFB with a communist rag.

Suppression and subjugation? Starving children? What a joke.

The reality is that this is voluntarily employment arrangements. No one is subjugated. People go to work voluntarily for an agreed upon compensation. If they don't like that, they can find another job. If they can't perform, they aren't entitle to be supported by the corporation or the community.

Look, if you don't want to work hard and improve, that's fine and it's the freedom you have. Just don't complain about being poor and demanding those who did work, save, and invest support you.

 

[code1211]

You might have heard these two words before. They center around whether society places emphasis on the individual or society as a whole.

Individualism is often associated with freedom. After all, authoritarian states tend to justify the curbing of freedoms by saying that it's for the greater good of society. The underlying idea behind individualism is that everyone should be themselves. Capitalism is based on this principle as the economy is in private hands. Pro capitalism advocates point out that the free market allows people's needs to be met. As Adam Smith put it:


The problem becomes when people act in their self interests at the expense of society. One example would be externalities.

Adam Smith also had this to say

If there's one thing he opposed more than any other, it was rent seeking which is when people increase their wealth without creating it (in other words, they took it from someone else). Examples include lobbying for laws that favor you at the expense of others, engaging in anti-competitive practices which put competitors out of business, living off of government handouts when you're capable of working, and accepting bribes. Rent seeking is basically stealing from society. Smith pointed out that people will seek to increase their wealth and take the path of least resistance to do so. If that path is one that involves knowing the right people or living on handouts, they're gonna be less likely to produce wealth.

This is not to say that individualism itself is problematic but rather that hyperindividualism, the lack of the recognition of a collective good, leads to problems. This is a big problem with the American conservative midset. They only see things through an individualist lens and are less likely to see things through a systemic lens. Margaret Thatcher once said that there is no such thing as society. Ayn Rand took it much further and stated that not only does the collective good not exist but also that it is immoral to be selfless.

Of course, there are issues with taking collectivism too far such as leaving no room for individual freedom. in order to have a good society, we need a balance.

The last sentence in your post is the one that makes sense.

The individual and the society exist best when blended together in a way or ways that allows both to flourish to the highest degree.

The simple truth is that any group of two or more people form a society with a hierarchy and a pecking order and all the rest.

That is why there is no free society that is not regulated. The argument is not between no regulation, as you seem to imply, and full regulation. It is between the degree and manifestation of the regulation imposed.

In a sailing ship, there is tension on the sails and tension on the rudder. Both are needed to guide the ship. Relax either completely and the ship stops- dead in the water. Too much from either and the ship departs from a true course.

Freedom and regulation in any society are the rudder and the sail.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

After all, authoritarian states tend to justify the curbing of freedoms by saying that it's for the greater good of society.

OH THE IRONY. It is those on the Right who want to outlaw abortion, restrict use of marijuana, and curb voting rights.

 

[Luckyone]

Loaded question. Depends on what you define as a livable wage. If the wages were truly unlivable, then obviously it wouldn't work because people would die, but we both know that's not the definition you mean.

When you go into an operating room you will have 5-6 people there for an open heart surgery. A CT surgeon, an anesthesiologist, and a handful of scrub techs and nurses. The CT surgeon makes $1MM/yr, the anesthesiologist makes $400k/yr, the rest make fractions of that. There is a huge income disparity, inequality if you will. Does the team still work? Yup. You know why? Because despite the inequality the lower income side of that spectrum is still being paid appropriately as it is voluntary. You should go have heart surgery in a situation where there is no inequality, I would be interesting in the outcome.

livable wages means enough to have someone "want" to give his best.

If a person has to work 3 jobs to be able to pay his bills, evidently he is not going to be able to do his best because if nothing else, his body will be tired and he will not be able to do his best even if he wants to.

Equitable is the word. Equitable so that everyone is happy in receiving what they are worth. Ace gets the most because he is the ace. Nonetheless, they ones that help him be the best, need to feel that their efforts helped him be the best without it costing them sacrifice, unless the ace is willing to sacrifice also.

 

[j brown's body]

GMAFB with a communist rag.

Suppression and subjugation? Starving children? What a joke.

The reality is that this is voluntarily employment arrangements. No one is subjugated. People go to work voluntarily for an agreed upon compensation. If they don't like that, they can find another job. If they can't perform, they aren't entitle to be supported by the corporation or the community.

Look, if you don't want to work hard and improve, that's fine and it's the freedom you have. Just don't complain about being poor and demanding those who did work, save, and invest support you.

We say its voluntary, but what is the alternative? Work for another company that pays the same wages? The idea that this is individual freedom is absurd.

 

[bave]

livable wages means enough to have someone "want" to give his best.

If a person has to work 3 jobs to be able to pay his bills, evidently he is not going to be able to do his best because if nothing else, his body will be tired and he will not be able to do his best even if he wants to.

Equitable is the word. Equitable so that everyone is happy in receiving what they are worth. Ace gets the most because he is the ace. Nonetheless, they ones that help him be the best, need to feel that their efforts helped him be the best without it costing them sacrifice, unless the ace is willing to sacrifice also.

I disagree with your definition. There is a huge number of people who are inherently lazy and entitled that will never be motivated to give 100%.

If a person has to work three jobs to pay their bills then they ought to reconsider both what their bills are and what their jobs are. You can very easily get a no-skill job in this country, fresh out of high school that pays $13-15/hr in low cost of living areas. You can easily make $25-30 an hour by the time you are in your mid 20's. The problem is you need to want to improve, work hard, and make good decisions. If you want to be a shitty employee, who is a problem, who has a drug/alcohol problem, and a criminal record life is going to be hard. I didn't do that to you, you did that to you.

I live in a low COL area, I have hundreds of employees. I will happily hire unskilled labor at $14-15/hr tomorrow for people who can communicate, show up, and put in an honest days work while passing a drug/background check. Do you know how rare that combination is nowadays? Everywhere I go I see "Help Wanted" signs.

We say its voluntary, but what is the alternative? Work for another company that pays the same wages? The idea that this is individual freedom is absurd.

You have the freedom to improve your skills. You have the freedom to work harder to increase your value. That crap works. You might poo-poo it, but it does. Ever hear the expression that "hard work makes luck happen"? I will give you a real story. I have 4 employees who have ostensibly the same skill set, same work hours, same experience, etc. 3 of them make about 60% of what the 4th makes. Know why? That 4th does ~50% more work, never complains, and always helps out the business. One of the three that always complains and cries about life being unfair is getting fired next week. Do you think I care? I didn't do that, she did that.

I started working when I was 12, washing dishes, under the table. I slowly worked up to prep-cooking at 17 before I went to college. I went to college on an athletics scholarship, a good school, where I double majored in two difficult programs. I graduated in three years. I spent decades grinding out 60-70 hour work weeks, not just being present, but actually putting in everything I had to give. That work ethic, which others saw, had opportunities present themselves. People gave me chances, chances I took, and capitalized on. There is nothing magical about the recipe.

 

[Phys251]

One would think that the most progressive tax code in the world, combined with progressive and means tested entitlement programs, might do just that. The problem is those who want to collect(ivism) always want more from the people providing.

That's what people who believe in individualist extremism would say. Stop parroting their lies.

 

[bave]

That's what people who believe in individualist extremism would say. Stop parroting their lies.

We have been over this before, I have provided evidence to the fact that the US has the most progressive tax code in the developed world. Are you still trying to say that is a lie? Or are you just dense?

 

[Phys251]

We have been over this before, I have provided evidence to the fact that the US has the most progressive tax code in the developed world.

In which post?

Are you still trying to say that is a lie? Or are you just dense?

Helpful hint: Never talk like that around here. It won't get you very far.

 

[bave]

In which post?

Helpful hint: Never talk like that around here. It won't get you very far.

For the third or fourth time....

News To Obama: The OECD Says the United States Has the Most Progressive Tax System

Barack Obama's admission that his policies would "spread the wealth around" has ignited a nationwide discussion of how progressive the taxA tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general...

taxfoundation.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/

Call someone a liar and you might get smacked over the head. You being ignorant isn't like to be met with congeniality.

 

[Phys251]

For the third or fourth time....

News To Obama: The OECD Says the United States Has the Most Progressive Tax System

Barack Obama's admission that his policies would "spread the wealth around" has ignited a nationwide discussion of how progressive the taxA tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general...

taxfoundation.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/

Call someone a liar and you might get smacked over the head. You being ignorant isn't like to be met with congeniality.

 

[Luckyone]

I disagree with your definition. There is a huge number of people who are inherently lazy and entitled that will never be motivated to give 100%.

If a person has to work three jobs to pay their bills then they ought to reconsider both what their bills are and what their jobs are. You can very easily get a no-skill job in this country, fresh out of high school that pays $13-15/hr in low cost of living areas. You can easily make $25-30 an hour by the time you are in your mid 20's. The problem is you need to want to improve, work hard, and make good decisions. If you want to be a shitty employee, who is a problem, who has a drug/alcohol problem, and a criminal record life is going to be hard. I didn't do that to you, you did that to you.

I live in a low COL area, I have hundreds of employees. I will happily hire unskilled labor at $14-15/hr tomorrow for people who can communicate, show up, and put in an honest days work while passing a drug/background check. Do you know how rare that combination is nowadays? Everywhere I go I see "Help Wanted" signs.



You have the freedom to improve your skills. You have the freedom to work harder to increase your value. That crap works. You might poo-poo it, but it does. Ever hear the expression that "hard work makes luck happen"? I will give you a real story. I have 4 employees who have ostensibly the same skill set, same work hours, same experience, etc. 3 of them make about 60% of what the 4th makes. Know why? That 4th does ~50% more work, never complains, and always helps out the business. One of the three that always complains and cries about life being unfair is getting fired next week. Do you think I care? I didn't do that, she did that.

I started working when I was 12, washing dishes, under the table. I slowly worked up to prep-cooking at 17 before I went to college. I went to college on an athletics scholarship, a good school, where I double majored in two difficult programs. I graduated in three years. I spent decades grinding out 60-70 hour work weeks, not just being present, but actually putting in everything I had to give. That work ethic, which others saw, had opportunities present themselves. People gave me chances, chances I took, and capitalized on. There is nothing magical about the recipe.

Look, humans by nature are fallible and therefore you can always find people that are not doing their fair share. Nonetheless, unless we can change human nature, it is a "fact of life". We have to go forward with what is and not what we want it to be. We have to work within the parameters of what humans are.

Ever hear of the oath of marriage where it says

"In the name of God, I, _____, take you, _____, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until parted by death. This is my solemn vow."

it is the same oath we all follow when we unite/join/marry our nation (whatever nation it may be).

You have to take the good with the bad as that is life and that A'INT going to change...........ever.

 

[bave]

Solid rebuttal junior.

Look, humans by nature are fallible and therefore you can always find people that are not doing their fair share. Nonetheless, unless we can change human nature, it is a "fact of life". We have to go forward with what is and not what we want it to be. We have to work within the parameters of what humans are.

Right, human nature is what it is. I work in the world where that exists and people will always try to do the bare minimum to get the maximum. I am not going to provide to others nor accept their excuses, for their own inability to provide for their own desires.

Ever hear of the oath of marriage where it says

"In the name of God, I, _____, take you, _____, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until parted by death. This is my solemn vow."

Jesus christ, are you insane? I chose my wife, she chose me. We have a relationship based on share values, goals, and communication. We both agreed to accept a responsibility and a duty to one another. I didn't marry 330MM Americans. They are not my family. They are not in my home, in my bed, and certainly not in my bank accounts.

You have to take the good with the bad as that is life and that A'INT going to change...........ever.

I do, but just live everyone else I have choices, as you said human nature. If you try to compel me with law to do things I feel unreasonable then I will change my behavior or my location. I left the Northeast because I found their regulations and taxes onerous. So I picked up and moved. If the United States does the same thing, I will move (my capital at least) and what did you achieve then? I am not here to be your donkey. The top 10% pays 80% of the taxes on 50% of the income and you still say that's not enough. The top 10% is paying the bills for this country by and large and then you turn around and complain it isn't enough. Most progressive tax code in the world, isn't enough.

It never stops with greedy entitled leftists.[/QUOTE]

 

[Phys251]

It never stops with greedy entitled leftists.

Such as whom? The only greedy people I've ever met were right-wing capitalists.

 

[bave]

Such as whom? The only greedy people I've ever met were right-wing capitalists.

Define greedy?

My effective federal tax rate generally hovers in the 27-29% range. Why is it greedy for me to pay that amount, not want to pay any more, when such a large portion of the nation pays near zero? Why is it greedy to buck against the most progressive tax code on the planet when I am at the extreme end?

From where I sit it is pretty simple. People who have never worked as hard, put in the time, taken the risk want to take from those that have because they feel morally entitled to do so. It is just mob thievery.

 

[Moderate Right]

You might have heard these two words before. They center around whether society places emphasis on the individual or society as a whole.

Individualism is often associated with freedom. After all, authoritarian states tend to justify the curbing of freedoms by saying that it's for the greater good of society. The underlying idea behind individualism is that everyone should be themselves. Capitalism is based on this principle as the economy is in private hands. Pro capitalism advocates point out that the free market allows people's needs to be met. As Adam Smith put it:


The problem becomes when people act in their self interests at the expense of society. One example would be externalities.

Adam Smith also had this to say

If there's one thing he opposed more than any other, it was rent seeking which is when people increase their wealth without creating it (in other words, they took it from someone else). Examples include lobbying for laws that favor you at the expense of others, engaging in anti-competitive practices which put competitors out of business, living off of government handouts when you're capable of working, and accepting bribes. Rent seeking is basically stealing from society. Smith pointed out that people will seek to increase their wealth and take the path of least resistance to do so. If that path is one that involves knowing the right people or living on handouts, they're gonna be less likely to produce wealth.

This is not to say that individualism itself is problematic but rather that hyperindividualism, the lack of the recognition of a collective good, leads to problems. This is a big problem with the American conservative midset. They only see things through an individualist lens and are less likely to see things through a systemic lens. Margaret Thatcher once said that there is no such thing as society. Ayn Rand took it much further and stated that not only does the collective good not exist but also that it is immoral to be selfless.

Of course, there are issues with taking collectivism too far such as leaving no room for individual freedom. in order to have a good society, we need a balance.

I would argue that there is a big problem with people being part of the collective, in not being able to have your own opinions on matters, you must have the same opinions as the collective. For example, conservative or right leaning blacks shouldn't be allowed to have their own opinions and are attacked by the left for straying away from the collective and referred to as traitors or uncle toms. Same basic thing happens on the right in reverse. You must be part of your collective or be outcast for having your own opinions that stray outside of your respective collective. End result: two corners at war with each other, gridlock, etc.

 

[Phys251]

Define greedy?

My effective federal tax rate generally hovers in the 27-29% range. Why is it greedy for me to pay that amount, not want to pay any more, when such a large portion of the nation pays near zero? Why is it greedy to buck against the most progressive tax code on the planet when I am at the extreme end?

Are you talking about Jeff Bezos or a member of the working poor? If the former, you are raising fair questions. If the latter, you reveal how much you do not understand about what it means to be working poor.

From where I sit it is pretty simple. People who have never worked as hard, put in the time, taken the risk want to take from those that have because they feel morally entitled to do so. It is just mob thievery.

The working poor are some of the hardest working people you will ever meet, if you'd just get out there and meet them.

 

[Luckyone]

Jesus christ, are you insane? I chose my wife, she chose me. We have a relationship based on share values, goals, and communication. We both agreed to accept a responsibility and a duty to one another. I didn't marry 330MM Americans. They are not my family. They are not in my home, in my bed, and certainly not in my bank accounts.

We (the U.S.) are a family just like your wife. When we were born here (or came here to become citizens) we chose to accept the family and that means the good and the bad. This does not mean that we cannot try to make the family better by pointing out the flaws and trying to fix them. Nonetheless, unless you want to divorce from being an American, you need to accept the laws that are in place now (as faulty as they may be).

Just like in your marriage, your wife (or you) can take a turn for the worse and you need to live with it if you are going to be faithful to the vows you took.

You pay taxes, don't you? The fact you pay taxes means that you are already contributing to giving welfare to other people because that is what was decided by voting as an American. You can work to make changes to what was decided by the majority but as long as you are an American, you have to live with the "good and bad", even if it means giving money to someone that is not doing anything to earn it. This is like putting up with whatever bad habit your wife may have.

You have no right to not do what the family (nation as a whole) has decided. You can try to change it but you have to live with it..............if you want a divorce because you cannot stand the bad things of your marriage, then do so and go and marry some other nation.

This is a Democracy, meaning that you have to accept the will of the majority. That is what the Constitution is. The will of the majority.

 

[bave]

Are you talking about Jeff Bezos or a member of the working poor? If the former, you are raising fair questions. If the latter, you reveal how much you do not understand about what it means to be working poor.

The working poor are some of the hardest working people you will ever meet, if you'd just get out there and meet them.

So, "the working poor" in the EU can afford to pay taxes there, with a higher COL but they can't here? Instead just tax the rich some more? I don't care about Bezos or his situation, you don't craft a tax code because of one or two people. More importantly, why do I suspect that despite your vilification of Bezos you still buy from Amazon. Put your money where your mouth is and patronize another business you support ideologically.

You act like I have never met poor people. Again, your definition of "working poor" isn't a scientific term. I will say it over and over. If you can't make $15/hr, then you screwed up, not the system, you.

 

[bave]

We (the U.S.) are a family just like your wife.

No. Just no. There is an english language that uses common definitions, try and use it.

Just like in your marriage, your wife (or you) can take a turn for the worse and you need to live with it if you are going to be faithful to the vows you took.

We agreed to that, based on common values and ethics. It was an individual choice, not foisted upon us by some made up definition of the word "family". I chose to marry my wife, and with that I accepted the responsibilities. I choose to help people around me based on their needs and merits. I am not beholden to some view of forced perpetual charity by some back asswards definition of family.

You pay taxes, don't you? The fact you pay taxes means that you are already contributing to giving welfare to other people because that is what was decided by voting as an American. You can work to make changes to what was decided by the majority but as long as you are an American, you have to live with the "good and bad", even if it means giving money to someone that is not doing anything to earn it.

Of course, I have to abide by the laws of the land. My entire point is that when you push that envelope too far with your righteous greed then you will find it counter productive, as every nation who has tried in the past has learned. Raise my taxes to 99%, do you think I will pay them? No. I will move my money into a safe haven, now you get nothing. If you try to pass a law to prevent that, then I will leave the country entirely, I have dual citizenship. This is all exactly what has happened in other nations. When you try to skin the sheep it just dies and leaves you worse off.

This is like putting up with whatever bad habit your wife may have.

Absolutely not. I'm not sure how your relationships work, but we communicate. If my wife is doing something I find to be a particularly poor choice, or vice versa, we talk about it and come to common ground. That is not the same thing as demanding my taxes go up to provide more welfare for people making bad choices.

You have no right to not do what the family (nation as a whole) has decided. You can try to change it but you have to live with it..............if you want a divorce because you cannot stand the bad things of your marriage, then do so and go and marry some other nation.

This entire analogy is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long while, so congrats on that. You can try and pass whatever law you want, you are right, and your view of that is incredibly stupid. You are cutting off your nose in spite of your face. Stick it to the wealthy, the people paying 80% of the taxes. Then they leave, they take their money, they take their tax revenue, and they leave. Best case? They change their behavior, restructure their earnings, invest elsewhere, and just damage the economy and tax receipts.

There is another thing you are missing, the constitution, and you have to respect that whether you like it or not. You see, that little piece of paper has some pretty firm and tight rules to it. Among them is a constitutional prohibition on taxing wealth. So, unless want to amend it, good luck with achieving your goals.

This is a Democracy, meaning that you have to accept the will of the majority. That is what the Constitution is. The will of the majority.

It's a republic, go back to middle school civics.

You think the constitution is the will of the majority? No. It is the founding document of the Republic that guarantees specific rights, restrictions, and provisions. It isn't a "flexible living document" like your ilk want it to be, it is designed to set a groundwork. It requires enormous effort to amend, for good and specific reason.