NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi, I know this is sort of a lost cause (The voting ends at midnight) but I wanted to know what you guys thought of my lastest proposal...

Semi-Socialist Act
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice Strength: Significant Proposed by: Zachnia
Description: Be it resolved that...

Anyone who makes more then one million American dollars in between the time of January 1 to December 31 give all the money exceeding one million to the government, where it will be distributed evenly among adults who make less then ten thousand a year, in the form of credit towards food, a house, or other necessities approved by the national government.

It's based on good intentions, but I'm not sure if that's the way to fix things. Perhaps fixing the system so that people don't get such unneccisary amounts of money in the first place would be more effective.
Go socialism. :)

Definitely not, that kind of taxation is robbery. They earned their money, shouldn't they be allowed to keep it?

Well, in many cases they really didn't earn there money. Like it says in the proposal, people like baseball players or actors really shouldn't be payed that much. Teachers or polica officers etc. Definately could use a little more money.


Plus, would could you ever do with more then 3 mil a year?

Get a life.

Unworkable, the rich will protest and the poor won't work because of government handouts. Sorry, but its either full socialism or not at all.

Isn't it kind of dumb to put a 100% tax on anything and expect it to generate revenue?

Imagine the negotiations between I. B. Richards and the Acme corporation for Richards salary as CEO:

Acme: We can offer you five million, but no more...
Richards: That's ok, one million is plenty.
Acme: Are you sure? How about four million and a free mansion?
Richards: What do I want that for? I wouldn't see a penny of it.
Acme: You've got a point, but it's customary....
Richards: Tell you what, I can only accept one million, but I'm sure I'll need some executive assistants. I have four cousins...
Acme: And you would like us to put them on your executive staff...
Richards: That's right.
Acme: At a salary of one million dollars each?
Richards: I think I can talk them into it.
Acme: Welcome to Acme, President Richards!
Richards: Thank you. You know, you're pretty sharp. First thing I'll do, is make sure you get a big raise...
Acme: No thanks, I'm already making a million dollars a year...

I am not anti-socialism or anything, but it should be the nations choice whether or not they want any form of Socialism, it shouldnt be an UN enforced thing. I am sure socialist nations would not enjoy a law that enforced partial capitialism on them :wink:

Well, in many cases they really didn't earn there money. Like it says in the proposal, people like baseball players or actors really shouldn't be payed that much. Teachers or polica officers etc. Definately could use a little more money.


Plus, would could you ever do with more then 3 mil a year?

We suggest you nationalise all your industries. Otherwise, the free market determines what each particular sort of labor is worth, and you really have no justifiable grounds on which to say that certain people "really shouln't be paid that much." In a free market economy, it is their boss' choice as to what they should get paid, and if the corporate world feels that an actor should earn more than a million dollars a year, it is their choice.

Further, we feel that as it stands now, your proposal would remove a lot of incentive for both individuals and companies to do quality work. Once again, consider nationalising all your industries instead. That way, you'll really be able to redistribute that wealth.

Office of the Governor

I have a better idea--let's not force people to give up money or other property that rightfully belongs to them.

Well, in many cases they really didn't earn there money. Like it says in the proposal, people like baseball players or actors really shouldn't be payed that much. Teachers or polica officers etc. Definately could use a little more money.

Plus, would could you ever do with more then 3 mil a year?

Well people ENJOY watched the actors and sports stars. They improve the people's quality of life. That's why they are paid so much.

If nobody enjoyed them then they wouldn't be paid as much.

:roll:
This probably sounds really bizarre, but I think that a system such as the one suggested would do more harm than good to the poor (which I classify as those recieving the equal parts of the millions). Take for example the Social Welfare system in the USA. Those recieving welfare checks seem to be satisfied with using that as their only source of income rather than getting a job, or working on completing their education. Socialism is the easiest way to keep a miniscule percentage of the population extremely rich and make sure that the rest of the citizens remain dependent on government handouts. People would no longer value hard work, because the rich would have their hard-earned money taken away from them and the poor would get sufficient funds to survive without lifting a finger.
I hope we can see the problems that this would cause on both ends. I am all for philantropy, but it has a place and time; and you can't force people to give their money up, no matter how good you think the cause is.
Just some food for thought,
Queen Jocelyne of West Sophiata

Like I said before, I think socialism is a good thing to strive for, but this isn't the way to do it. Giving people money and then taking it all away seems pointless- it just creates useless bureaucracy. Not to mention it forces nations to decide on how to run their economies- I'm all for socialism, mind you, but I don't think forcing it on people who *don't want it* is a very good idea.
I think for a nation that does want to move toward socialism, though, instead of taxing the people, the best thing to do is to nationalize everything, but in a way that doesn't make everything "goverment property" (which would alienate the people) but "public property." Eliminating the monetary system wouldn't be bad either, too bad you can't do that (as far as I know) in NationStates (the closest you can get is just have a 100% tax, too bad). There's still motivation to work, of course. As opposed to motivation to climb over everyone to get to the top because of fear or greed, in socialism the motivation would be to succeed in the name of altruism, to contribute to society, and most of all the pursuit of self-realization through *voluntary* labor, not mandantory.

There's still motivation to work, of course. As opposed to motivation to climb over everyone to get to the top because of fear or greed, in socialism the motivation would be to succeed in the name of altruism, to contribute to society, and most of all the pursuit of self-realization through *voluntary* labor, not mandantory.

Not everyone would be motivated by these things. Some surely would, but, in general, selfishness tends to be a better motivator than altruism.

Office of the Governor

Not everyone would be motivated by these things. Some surely would, but, in general, selfishness tends to be a better motivator than altruism.

Office of the Governor
In today's society this is often the trend. Or at least that's how it appears. It's too bad, I know I for one would take altruism. Perhaps I'm an idealist.

Notice that most of hte great atrocities of the twentieth century have been perpetrated by the supporters of altruism.

Selfishness didn't kill 8 million people in Ukraine or 40 million Chinese in the name of economic equality or wipe out 2/3 of the Jews in Europe. Altruism, the sacrifice of your own interests for a group (the class in the first two examples, your race in the third), did.

Well, in many cases they really didn't earn there money. Like it says in the proposal, people like baseball players or actors really shouldn't be payed that much. Teachers or polica officers etc. Definately could use a little more money.

Plus, would could you ever do with more then 3 mil a year?

Well people ENJOY watched the actors and sports stars. They improve the people's quality of life. That's why they are paid so much.

If nobody enjoyed them then they wouldn't be paid as much.

Yeah, sure they enjoy it. But it doesn't even approach teh ened of teachers or medical health. The reason they're paid so much is because the MLB is run by people who were born rich.

We oppose vehemently the very notion of socialism being forced onto us.

Notice that most of hte great atrocities of the twentieth century have been perpetrated by the supporters of altruism.
Altruism didn't kill those people, Communism (which the leaders responsible used as a fancy word for totalitarianism) did. I don't see how you equate killing people to helping them.
I'm also not sure how you see helping someone else as sacrificing your own interests. Have you never helped someone up when they fell over? Or participated in community work? Did you sacrifice your interests in the process? In my experience, community work emphasizes individuality, especially since its voluntary.

Smoke pot, The Kingdom of Doobiez' answer to everything! If you want socialism, smoke pot!

The Kingdom of Doobiez owns your sorry asses, kuz we smoke pot :twisted:

Damn worthless commies.

i am a die hard marxist but i am fed up with capitalists trying to force capitalism on us so why do some of u try and force socialism on capitalists. i belive marxism will save the world from totalitarian evil but if we force our opinions on others we only become like the totalitarians them selves.

i am a die hard marxist but i am fed up with capitalists trying to force capitalism on us so why do some of u try and force socialism on capitalists. i belive marxism will save the world from totalitarian evil but if we force our opinions on others we only become like the totalitarians them selves.

To stop the self destructive nature of capitalism you must remove all traces of capitalism, otherwise the revolution will be ineffective and easily overthrown.

If you are a die hard marxist then you believe that communism is inevitable in which case I suppose that isn't a problem. For the rest of us however, socialism must be forced on the ruling class or it will fail.

yes i must agree capitalism must be removed but we must not enforce its removal it must be out of the peoples choice or it will never work. I belive this will happen eventually everywhere because as was previously said communism is envitable and the protalitariat will eventually get fed up with the overwhelming power of the ruling classes.

When Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, he talked about society being divided up into two different classes, the 'capitalists' and the 'proletariat'. Aside from the fact that Marx only looked at the economic aspect of society, he was wrong in other ways. What Marx failed to realize was, when a nation is capitalist for a while, a middle class emerges.
I agree that there are 'some' socialistic elements in modern 'capitalist' societies, but for the most part, capitalism rules the day. Besides the fact that socialism fails usually because it does not promote ambition, competition, etc., one must also look at modern examples. All, not most, all of the nations that attempted pure socialism and communism have ended up with larger poor populations than capitalist countries. Several modern communist societies are improving not because they are following Marxist ideals, but because they are adopting capitalist ideas.

no there are no real Marxist states the states u r thinking of r probably stalinist the bane of all marxists, if everyone stopped thinking of themselves instead of others and then adopted marxist theorys we might get there and have a true marxist state.

There will never be a time when everyone thinks of others before themselves. Sorry, it's never going to happen.

Besides, capitalism is working out and getting better. Marxism has failed time and time again. It has proven to be an impossible society. Why try for it? No, scratch that. We shouldn't try for it because it is inherently flawed and succeptable to corruption (even more than capatilism).

...Marx... talked about society being divided up into two different classes, the 'capitalists' and the 'proletariat'. ... What Marx failed to realize was, when a nation is capitalist for a while, a middle class emerges. The bourgeoisie was the middle class, interpolated between the peasantry and the nobility before it overthrew the latter. What we now call the "middle class", Marx called the "petit-bourgeoisie". He was perfectly aware of its existenc, but believed that it was an anomaly that would soon be crushed by the real bourgeoisie. He was, as usual, completely wrong.

i am a die hard marxist but i am fed up with capitalists trying to force capitalism on us so why do some of u try and force socialism on capitalists. i belive marxism will save the world from totalitarian evil but if we force our opinions on others we only become like the totalitarians them selves.

Socialism = totalitarian evil via voting

yes i must agree capitalism must be removed but we must not enforce its removal it must be out of the peoples choice or it will never work. I belive this will happen eventually everywhere because as was previously said communism is envitable and the protalitariat will eventually get fed up with the overwhelming power of the ruling classes.

Ah yes. The "historical inevitability"--taken as a given. How very---Hegelian. Of course, we know how much Marx hated Hegel, even though everthing that Marx wrote was Hegel minus the supernatural stuff.

Never let it be said that Marx was consistent. Hell, he even tried to get mobs to incite riots and overthrow governments, proving that even he didn't believe what he wrote about "historical inevitability".

Definitely not, that kind of taxation is robbery. They earned there money, shouldn't they be allowed to keep it?

You dont seem to understand that fact that in a socialistic country, the government provides more for you, so it works to be an even exchange?

:D yay conversation about Socialism, I still think the good ol' Nihlism and others are better even though u couldnt run a country under it

Definitely not, that kind of taxation is robbery. They earned there money, shouldn't they be allowed to keep it?

You dont seem to understand that fact that in a socialistic country, the government provides more for you, so it works to be an even exchange?

Bullshit. The government takes more money from me, true, I get more than I did before (although I could, and would prefer to, provide it myself)--but not an amount equal to what was taken from me.

Damn worthless commies.

If that's all you can say for yourself, every nation should be socialist already.

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way around.

The bourgeoisie was the middle class, interpolated between the peasantry and the nobility before it overthrew the latter. What we now call the "middle class", Marx called the "petit-bourgeoisie". He was perfectly aware of its existenc, but believed that it was an anomaly that would soon be crushed by the real bourgeoisie. He was, as usual, completely wrong.
And what you fail to realize is that the only reason why we have a middle class is because capitalism adopted many more socialist elements since Marx's time. Pure capitalism destroys the middle class and separates society into very rich and very poor, just as Marx explained. However, we don't live in pure capitalism. We live in mixed systems.

I belive this will happen eventually everywhere because as was previously said communism is envitable and the protalitariat will eventually get fed up with the overwhelming power of the ruling classes.
Communism is only "inevitable" as long as people actively fight for it. If you sit back and do nothing, the capitalists will eventually bring the world to ruin, and then we'll have to start building civilization all over again.

Notice that most of hte great atrocities of the twentieth century have been perpetrated by the supporters of altruism.
Oh yes, I can see how Hitler and Stalin were the most altruistic people who ever lived. :roll:

Atrocities are caused by the selfish interests of dictators and oligarchies. An altruistic person does no go around killing his fellow human beings. Only a selfish one does.

As for the original subject of this topic, I'm afraid New Democrats is right. This proposal is unworkable. It's much better to just go for full socialism, and take the means of production completely out of the hands of the capitalists. Power to the people!

Well, in many cases they really didn't earn there money. Like it says in the proposal, people like baseball players or actors really shouldn't be payed that much. Teachers or polica officers etc. Definately could use a little more money.


Plus, would could you ever do with more then 3 mil a year?

A lot of wealth is merely inherited; the person enjoying has done no earning, nothing productive to justify their status.

Some wealth is earned by fraud, deception, financial manipulation.

Some is far out of proportion to the value of the work performed. Why should any CEO, however able, make a seven-figure salary per year? These people have more wealth in annual income than the vast majority of us can ever accumulate in a lifetime. It is not adequate to simply say the market forces set these salary levels, because they are patently ridiculous. We need some corrections.

Why should any CEO, however able, make a seven-figure salary per year?It is not adequate to simply say the market forces set these salary levels, because they are patently ridiculous. We need some corrections.

It's more than just not inadequate to say that market forces set salary levels for CEO's, it's completely incorrect. CEO's salaries are set by the board of directors. In many, if not most, cases the members of these boards are CEOs of other companies, and they all sit on each others boards, and vote on each other's salaries. So, they give each other huge rases in the hope (or guarantee) that they will get the same themselves.

As for the salaries of the working class, they are also not set by pure market forces. The ruling class keeps a certain percentage of those able to work unemployed. The unemployed are then used to keep down the wages of the working class.

The People's Republic of Schim has spoken.

:lol: :lol: JUST WONDERING IF ANYONE LIKES TO SHOOT RIFLES AT OBJECT(PEOPLE) AT LONG RANGES? :lol: :lol:

Yes, heaven forbid the people who are actually paying the salaries should be allowed to decide how much they pay people.

As for inheritance, it was given to the heir by the person who owned it previously; therefore, the heir has every right to it.

The people who are paying the salaries also happen to be the people who steal from their workers in order to make a profit.
Your economic ideas were tried before: Back in the 19th century, when we had child labour, sweatshops, 10 hour working days and 6 day working weeks, etc. - all in the name of your beloved "free market".

As for inheritance: If you're such a great advocate of individualism, then how come you want children to be rewarded or punished for the actions of their parents? That basically means putting some people's fate into other people's hands - something you keep crying out against.

- double post -

The people who are paying the salaries also happen to be the people who steal from their workers in order to make a profit.
No, they reach an agreement with their employees.

Your economic ideas were tried before:
False.
Back in the 19th century, when we had child labour, sweatshops, 10 hour working days and 6 day working weeks, etc. - all in the name of your beloved "free market".
Because the employees agreed to it.

If you're such a great advocate of individualism, then how come you want children to be rewarded or punished for the actions of their parents? That basically means putting some people's fate into other people's hands - something you keep crying out against.

False again. My, you really are stupid, aren't you? You see, it's not a matter of "reward" or "punishment"--it's a matter of letting an individual dispose of what is rightfully his as he pleases--including giving it to another if he so desires.

No, they reach an agreement with their employees.
...which is very similar to the kind of "agreement" that the two of us would reach if I put a gun to your head.

The employers and the employees do not negotiate from positions of equal power, therefore the side with more power (the employers) can impose its will on the other.

False.
Riiiight, I forgot: All those unions, general strikes, communist uprisings, etc. of the 19th century and early 20th century were the people's way of showing how much they loved classical capitalism. :roll:

The welfare state saved your butt. You were forced to compromise between capitalism and socialism to avoid all-out revolution. And now that the danger has passed, you wish to resume your old methods of exploitation.

Because the employees agreed to it.
Yes, they had the wonderful choice between "agreeing" to work like slaves or starving to death. Glory to the free market! :roll:

False again. My, you really are stupid, aren't you? You see, it's not a matter of "reward" or "punishment"--it's a matter of letting an individual dispose of what is rightfully his as he pleases--including giving it to another if he so desires.
In the fantasy you've built for yourself, you must be the most intelligent being on the planet. And, of course, you show your superior intellect by dispatching other people's arguments with idiotic one-liners and the same ridiculous crap that every "individualist" parrot spews out.

So let me get this straight: Individuals can give their property to anyone they like, unless that someone happens to be the government, in which case it becomes evil theft on the government's part. Also, it's perfectly okay for less able children to get into better schools because their parents are rich, while more able children never get a chance to succeed in life because their parents are poor. So much for your "meritocracy"...

No, they reach an agreement with their employees.
...which is very similar to the kind of "agreement" that the two of us would reach if I put a gun to your head.

The employers and the employees do not negotiate from positions of equal power, therefore the side with more power (the employers) can impose its will on the other.
You couldn't be more wrong. You see, if you put a gun to my head you are threatening to take something from me that is rightfully mine (my life). The employer is doing no such thing.

False.
Riiiight, I forgot: All those unions, general strikes, communist uprisings, etc. of the 19th century and early 20th century were the people's way of showing how much they loved classical capitalism. :roll:
No, it was their way of showing they were unwilling to take responsibility for the decisions they made voluntarily.

The welfare state saved your butt. You were forced to compromise between capitalism and socialism to avoid all-out revolution. And now that the danger has passed, you wish to resume your old methods of exploitation.
Really? I don't remember being alive then.

Because the employees agreed to it.
Yes, they had the wonderful choice between "agreeing" to work like slaves or starving to death. Glory to the free market! :roll:
No one has a right to a living at the expense of another--that's called "slavery".

False again. My, you really are stupid, aren't you? You see, it's not a matter of "reward" or "punishment"--it's a matter of letting an individual dispose of what is rightfully his as he pleases--including giving it to another if he so desires.
In the fantasy you've built for yourself, you must be the most intelligent being on the planet. And, of course, you show your superior intellect by dispatching other people's arguments with idiotic one-liners and the same ridiculous crap that every "individualist" parrot spews out.
They're my own ideas. There happen to be a lot of people who say that because we happen to agree--because there's only one way where individuals can be free to do as they wish without outside interference or coercion--and that's called "capitalism".

So let me get this straight: Individuals can give their property to anyone they like, unless that someone happens to be the government, in which case it becomes evil theft on the government's part.
Wrong. If he chooses to give it to the government, that's his decision--he just can't demand that others be forced to do the same.
Also, it's perfectly okay for less able children to get into better schools because their parents are rich, while more able children never get a chance to succeed in life because their parents are poor.
Right. You know, though, scholarships and charity exist for a reason.

You couldn't be more wrong. You see, if you put a gun to my head you are threatening to take something from me that is rightfully mine (my life). The employer is doing no such thing.
What you're saying is that putting a gun to your head is active coercion, while the employer is using passive coercion. The way I see it, they are one and the same.

Just replace "putting a gun to your head" with "letting you fall off a cliff when it would be extremely easy for me to pull you up".

No, it was their way of showing they were unwilling to take responsibility for the decisions they made voluntarily.
They never had the chance to make any decisions. Others took those decisions for them, and gave them the choice between doing as they were told or starving to death. That is slavery.

There is no sight more beautiful than seeing the slaves rise up to overthrow their masters.

Really? I don't remember being alive then.
"You" as in "capitalists". And yes, I love to rub it in.

No one has a right to a living at the expense of another--that's called "slavery".
Oh good, then you agree that we should abolish private property over the means of production, yes? Because living at the expense of another is EXACTLY what the capitalist business owners are doing. And you're right, it's called slavery. In this case, "wage slavery".

They're my own ideas. There happen to be a lot of people who say that because we happen to agree--because there's only one way where individuals can be free to do as they wish without outside interference or coercion--and that's called "capitalism".
No, it's called "la-la land". Like it or not, human beings are social animals, and we live in a society. We are influenced by others and we influence others in turn. Right now, you are engaging in a social activity. And because we live together and influence each other, we have certain responsibilities towards each other. Capitalists run away from those responsibilities because it suits their own greedy purposes. Socialists and communists understand that a healthy society can only exist when people learn to co-operate and accept both their rights and their responsibilities.

If you lived as a hermit in the mountains, you would be perfectly justified not to help anyone else and to be as selfish as you like. But that is not the case, is it?

Right. You know, though, scholarships and charity exist for a reason.
Yes, let's put the future of our children at the mercy of extremely rich people who MIGHT or might NOT decide to be generous... depending on relations, personal favours, and every imaginable kind of corruption.

Pure socialism=bad
Pure Capitalism=bad
Mix between the two=good

yeah i like that, im a democratic - socialist person and i think is a very good idea!

yeah i like that, im a democratic - socialist person and i think is a very good idea!

The term you are looking for is social democracy. Democratic socialism is pure socialism. Socialism is the transition to communism, democratic socialism is simply one method of achieving this. You cannot really have half socialism/ half capitalism.