what's wrong with socialism?

[Islam Imamate]

I get what your saying. Technically, here are the countries with no income tax

• United Arab Emirates
• Oman
• Bahrain
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia
• Kuwait
• Bermuda
• Cayman Islands
• The Bahamas
• Brunei

Not all shitholes

These seven countries can afford to have no income tax because they have massive hydrocarbon resources with small populations and they provide incredibly generous welfare on the basis of that. If you'd like to get rid of income tax in America and instead nationalize all our hydrocarbon resources to fund generous welfare programs I can't say I'd be in disagreement. Also fumy how they're all Muslim nations...

The other three are probably tax havens.

 

[n...not crazy]

It looks good on paper but in the end, humans are still running the show. So that means it will go to shit regardless.

 

[Trotsky]

Also fumy how they're all Muslim nations...

Islamic common law actually has a lot of mandates on equitable allocation of resources, supposedly tracing back to more agrarian times when many made their earnings tending farmland. Because of the arid and unpredictable climate, yield was inconsistent, so it was seen as morally unconscionable for either (a) landowners to charge fixed rents exceeding the value of the yield in times of drought, or (b) worker-renters to benefit from an unusually productive season and pocket yield in excess of what was predicted in the rent. So, whereas fixed rents were/are common in the West, sharecropping came to shape Islamic views on resource distribution.

Idk, I always thought it was kind of interesting.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

and? Is there a point to this post?

Mostly to express amazement and disgust at the bigoted mindset.

Anyone over the age of about 10 knows that blacks' and Latinos' incomes are lower than whites' and Asians', but to frame single-payer as a "direct subsidy" of one entire racial/ethnic group to another takes some really impressive racism.

Single-payer isn't going to bring blacks' and Latinos' health spending to zero. It's also not going to keep white and Asian health spending steady or raise it. Yet that's exactly the way people like you see it.

Again:

 

[Islam Imamate]

Islamic common law actually has a lot of mandates on equitable allocation of resources, supposedly tracing back to more agrarian times when many made their earnings tending farmland. Because of the arid and unpredictable climate, yield was inconsistent, so it was seen as morally unconscionable for either (a) landowners to charge fixed rents exceeding the value of the yield in times of drought, or (b) worker-renters to benefit from an unusually productive season and pocket yield in excess of what was predicted in the rent. So, whereas fixed rents were/are common in the West, sharecropping came to shape Islamic views on resource distribution.

Idk, I always thought it was kind of interesting.

You also see it in the inheritance law which doesn't allow one heir to monopolize the inheritance. Even women get a (half) share!

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

These seven countries can afford to have no income tax because they have massive hydrocarbon resources with small populations and they provide incredibly generous welfare on the basis of that. If you'd like to get rid of income tax in America and instead nationalize all our hydrocarbon resources to fund generous welfare programs I can't say I'd be in disagreement. Also fumy how they're all Muslim nations...

The other three are probably tax havens.

My only point was they are not shitholes based on lack of taxation as the poster had stated and again I understand what he's saying..I'm just being technical.

 

[Islam Imamate]

My only point was they are not shitholes based on lack of taxation as the poster had stated and again I understand what he's saying..I'm just being technical.

They are only not shitholes due to specific circumstances. Also his point applies there; no taxation, no representation. The seven countries I highlighted are not democratic.

 

[Trotsky]

You also see it in the inheritance law which doesn't allow one heir to monopolize the inheritance. Even women get a (half) share!

Yeah, there's a lot to like (imo) about Islamic law.

On that topic, though, the US has by far the least efficient system for inheritance, by making it both fully alienable and fully challenge-able. It's just another area in many (environmental remediation liability, healthcare, antitrust regulation) where billions in court costs and thousands of judicial hours are wasted for greed.

 

[cincymma79]

You also see it in the inheritance law which doesn't allow one heir to monopolize the inheritance. Even women get a (half) share!

If they’re Muslim
Forgot that part for some reason

 

[cincymma79]

They are only not shitholes due to specific circumstances. Also his point applies there; no taxation, no representation. The seven countries I highlighted are not democratic.

Which sharia state doesn’t full on suck donkey ass?

 

[KeepItRealist]

It's bad because human beings are not ants and don't wish to be.

 

[Mondo Freaks]

Its not fair. People who actually work hard for their shit should be able to keep their money.

Big government is bad. And dont get me wrong, this isnt a left v right thing. Trump's administration is very pro Big Government.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Some people are more important than others. People are not equal.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

The origin of the term "left wing" was the rise in power of the new merchant class (the fledgling middle class) against conservative support for the monarchy. Later it broadened to simply mean egalitarian opposition to the established hierarchy.
In that sense the "left-wing" had a "chicken and egg" relationship with all those social changes which lead to the rise of the middle class and the emergence of "adolescence" as a recognised developmental period.

So you're conceding that "leftist" from years, decades, centuries ago is not even close to what leftist means today then, k, got it. The people involved now considered "leftist" would get knuckle fist sandwiched by the past.

 

[Kindacrazy]

Mostly to express amazement and disgust at the bigoted mindset.

Anyone over the age of about 10 knows that blacks' and Latinos' incomes are lower than whites' and Asians', but to frame single-payer as a "direct subsidy" of one entire racial/ethnic group to another takes some really impressive racism.

Single-payer isn't going to bring blacks' and Latinos' health spending to zero. It's also not going to keep white and Asian health spending steady or raise it. Yet that's exactly the way people like you see it.

Again:

What I stated was a fact. The racist element was in your imagination. I am concerned with the social implications of these potential policies. No group will continue to support policies which drain resources directly from their community in order to subsidize another in the long term. That is not an unreasonable position and it has nothing to do with race. Name the groups A and B or 1 and 2 and nothing changes. Communities have two choices, adopt a more competitive behavioral pattern or integrate better. That is the nature of multicultural nation-states.

And yes it will raise the health spending for Whites and Asians, definitively so. If costs are socialized and the taxation methodology is progressive then this is a definitive relationship.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That's dishonest demagoguery.

Can't expect much more from Ben Shapiro

 

[Ruprecht]

So you're conceding that "leftist" from years, decades, centuries ago is not even close to what leftist means today then, k, got it. The people involved now considered "leftist" would get knuckle fist sandwiched by the past.

The meaning is the same, the manifestations have changed. I wasn't defending Shapiro's statement though. I tend more towards soft technological determinism.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

What I stated was a fact. The racist element was in your imagination. I am concerned with the social implications of these potential policies. No group will continue to support policies which drain resources directly from their community in order to subsidize another in the long term. That is not an unreasonable position and it has nothing to do with race. Name the groups A and B or 1 and 2 and nothing changes. Communities have two choices, adopt a more competitive behavioral pattern or integrate better. That is the nature of multicultural nation-states.

And yes it will raise the health spending for Whites and Asians, definitively so. If costs are socialized and the taxation methodology is progressive then this is a definitive relationship.

It's certainly not a fact.

A "direct drain of resources" from whites, or a "direct subsidy" to blacks and Latinos would mean that only whites would pay more under single-payer, or only blacks and Latinos would see their healthcare costs go down, while Asians' and whites' go up. That's impossible because there are no single-payer proposals that divide costs based on racial/ethnic groups.

If you want to argue on class terms then yeah, you may be right. The 1% is subsidizing the bottom 50% or something. But that's far from "whites and Asians are directly subsidizing Latinos and blacks."

 

[Kindacrazy]

It's certainly not a fact.

A "direct drain of resources" from whites, or a "direct subsidy" to blacks and Latinos would mean that only whites would pay more under single-payer, or only blacks and Latinos would see their healthcare costs go down, while Asians' and whites' go up. That's impossible because there are no single-payer proposals that divide costs based on racial/ethnic groups.

If you want to argue on class terms then yeah, you may be right. The 1% is subsidizing the bottom 50% or something. But that's far from "whites and Asians are directly subsidizing Latinos and blacks."

What I said was a direct mathematical truth, utterly inarguable. If you group people by ethnicity or community, or cultural grouping you find that one group is subsidizing another. The only way that such a structure has ever been maintainable is in a relatively homogeneous social group where direct familial ties allow for family groupings to justify the socialization of those costs. In a multicultural nation it is untenable in the long term.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

What I said was a direct mathematical truth, utterly inarguable. If you group people by ethnicity or community, or cultural grouping you find that one group is subsidizing another. The only way that such a structure has ever been maintainable is in a relatively homogeneous social group where direct familial ties allow for family groupings to justify the socialization of those costs. In a multicultural nation it is untenable in the long term.

No, what's mathematical truth is that the top, say, 1% are disproportionately whiter and more Asian than the general population and the bottom, say, 50% are more black and Latino than the general population and that that bottom 50% will see more relief in their healthcare costs through single-payer.

But that's not a "direct subsidy from whites and Asians to blacks and Latinos." There's milions of whites in that bottom 50% as well.