Collective wealth leads to collective well-being

[there4eyeM]

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society

Serving the "public good" is something corporations abandoned around the time of the Robber Barons.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary (Chp. 9)

"We need a new economic principle that says that public companies have a responsibility to the public good.

"We had this once upon a time at our founding as a nation, when corporations were chartered by individual states only to serve the public good.

"This tradition was gradually eroded by the courts right around the time of the Robber Barrons.

"The original intention behind the corporation in America’s early years, however, was definitely serving the public good – the 'polar star' of the American Revolution.

"Shareholder primacy emerged out of common law in the mid-nineteenth century, right around the same time stockholders’ agents developed our modern financial statements as a way to keep tabs on how well their principles’ investments were doing.

"These reports were never intended to represent the corporations overall performance.

"They were simply the slice that stockholders cared about – and that’s the part that we are stuck with today, and something all companies are legally required to produce on an ongoing basis."

I simply just meant that companies and corporations would pay much more in taxes and that the money would also contribute to the services for all.

Private enterprise exists and benefits because of collective effort; roads, mail, police, etc. Those who benefit disproportionately from collective effort naturally have a bigger debt.

 

[easyt65]

This is my first attempt at creating a thread and I wasn't sure if this belongs in Politics or not but since the topic hits on several political issues of today I think it's probably fitting. To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society. That investment (taxes) would yield benefits like "free" medical care, dental care, education, maternity/paternity leaves, pre-k, among other benefits and programs provided for all citizens while also reducing the uncertainty millions of American feel everyday around these topics, the risk that millions of Americans take everyday for these topics, the lack of mobility and the the anxiety and stress that millions of Americans are under because of these issues. Reduced stress, reduced fear, reduced individual risk, reduced inequity in turn yields increased happiness, increased hope, increased societal investment, and increased collective well-being. There is a lot of detail that would go into taxation and what constitutes as "free" but that's something i'm open to discussing as this evolves.

People will often view higher taxes as a burden, and will also view higher taxes that would go towards increased government provided programs as socialist, however, if all citizens and companies truly contribute towards these programs and social programs by using the wealth we all create then it should be viewed as an investment, not a burden in my opinion. You are investing in the collective well-being of all people, including yourself, and if we are all contributing, if we are all putting our money into the effort, if we are all sacrificing a greater percentage of our personal gain for the greater collective good then what you end up with is a shared system that in essence purchases quality of life. No system is perfect, but closing the gap, creating a society that views success as something to share and not hoard, and putting the good of the many above the individual is in my opinion something to work towards.

It worked great for 'Star Trek', but when you have leaders who violate both Constitution and law - leaders who illegally spy on Americans, commit FISA Abuses, engage in coup attempts, and vote to Impeach based on no crime, no evidence, and no witnesses just to get back and retain power you have nothing like what you are describing.

The individuals who are in charge of the Democratic party today rigged their primaries to deny its voters a voice / choice, have openly declared voters can not be trusted to vote because they would not choose the path the PARTY wants to take - that would not benefit the PARTY and those in power. The levels they are willing to go to is frightening, and they are not doing so in order for everyone to share power equally - they do so that THEY may be in power and control the lives of everyone they deem themselves to be better than.

If everyone was in the mindset you describe it would be great...but they are not. It is scary how the Democrats do not want an openly professed Socialist / Communist-admirer to win their nomination, but their own actions taken to regain and keep power emulate more the governments Sanders has praised than the ones our Founding Fathers created.

 

[there4eyeM]

At the bottom of every discussion/argument about Socialism/Collective versus Freedom/Free Markets is the main difference between you and me... You believe in ASSURING a "zero risk" life for everyone at the expense of others. You said exactly that in your Opening Post.

If you say capitalism and free markets together, we don't have such a system in America.

We already a zero risk life scenario for special interests at the expense of the working class.

See my Central Banking Is Socialism thread from today.

The way that money volume is handled is not socialism.. Money NEEDS to be injected into the financial institutions when the economy speeds up.. Just like it's taken away when it's not.. If ya got an increasing GDP, the money needs to be there. And Unk Sam can't just drop it from black helicopters...

As "socialism" means government ownership and control of supply, "money" as described in the above post definitely fits the 'bill' (pun intended).
Social programs are not synonymous with socialism.

 

[Pogo]

That's not the purpose of govt. Go back to school.

Government's purpose is to serve its people. If the people want change and to grant it the ability to provide certain services then it’s within its purpose in my opinion.

No it's not. What don't you have access to?

Im not really talking about access in the same way you are though, I’m talking about the costs and the process and how those affects access for millions of middle class people.

Sure you are. You want the money for power so your govt cronies decide access. Try breaking up the monopolies and enforcing laws you might find your "access" problem goes away

I’m not interested in power. I’m interested in a system that closes the gap between rich and poor. A system that everybody feels a connection with through a shared investment.

In other words a community.

Just wait 'til the knuckledraggers figure out that that's the root of the word communisim.

 

[Gdjjr]

As "socialism" means government ownership and control of supply, "money"

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

Learn to pronounce

noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Definition of fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

 

[Natural Citizen]

Looks like Trump's going to announce some more of that government 'stimulus' spending (aka bailouts) tonight. Where's that money coming from? The government doesnlt produce anything, therefor it has nothing. What damage is that gonna further do to the value of muh dollar? And muh savings?

I've got ten of those four cent Federal Reserve Notes that says our self-professed 'free market' guys will be cheering it on. lol.

Socialism for me but not for thee, right? Buncha darned frauds, the lot of em.

 

[bendog]

This is my first attempt at creating a thread and I wasn't sure if this belongs in Politics or not but since the topic hits on several political issues of today I think it's probably fitting. To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society. That investment (taxes) would yield benefits like "free" medical care, dental care, education, maternity/paternity leaves, pre-k, among other benefits and programs provided for all citizens while also reducing the uncertainty millions of American feel everyday around these topics, the risk that millions of Americans take everyday for these topics, the lack of mobility and the the anxiety and stress that millions of Americans are under because of these issues. Reduced stress, reduced fear, reduced individual risk, reduced inequity in turn yields increased happiness, increased hope, increased societal investment, and increased collective well-being. There is a lot of detail that would go into taxation and what constitutes as "free" but that's something i'm open to discussing as this evolves.

People will often view higher taxes as a burden, and will also view higher taxes that would go towards increased government provided programs as socialist, however, if all citizens and companies truly contribute towards these programs and social programs by using the wealth we all create then it should be viewed as an investment, not a burden in my opinion. You are investing in the collective well-being of all people, including yourself, and if we are all contributing, if we are all putting our money into the effort, if we are all sacrificing a greater percentage of our personal gain for the greater collective good then what you end up with is a shared system that in essence purchases quality of life. No system is perfect, but closing the gap, creating a society that views success as something to share and not hoard, and putting the good of the many above the individual is in my opinion something to work towards.

Well I disagree about collective wealth, but as a former, and after Trump current goper, I'm not against using a tax credit or something (and the late Senator Bennett of Utah proposed) to make sure all Americans have access to healthcare.

 

[bendog]

Looks like Trump's going to announce some more of that government 'stimulus' spending (aka bailouts) tonight. Where's that money coming from? What damage is that gonna further do to the value of muh dollar? And muh savings?

I've got ten of those four cent Federal Reserve Notes that says our self-professed 'free market' guys will be cheering it on. lol.

Socialism for me but not for thee, right? Heh heh. Buncha darned frauds, the lot of em.

Bail out the oil shale speculators. That's the ticket!

 

[Manonthestreet]

That's not the purpose of govt. Go back to school.

Government's purpose is to serve its people. If the people want change and to grant it the ability to provide certain services then it’s within its purpose in my opinion.

No it's not. What don't you have access to?

Im not really talking about access in the same way you are though, I’m talking about the costs and the process and how those affects access for millions of middle class people.

Sure you are. You want the money for power so your govt cronies decide access. Try breaking up the monopolies and enforcing laws you might find your "access" problem goes away

I’m not interested in power. I’m interested in a system that closes the gap between rich and poor. A system that everybody feels a connection with through a shared investment.

Govt is, full time.

 

[White 6]

This is my first attempt at creating a thread and I wasn't sure if this belongs in Politics or not but since the topic hits on several political issues of today I think it's probably fitting. To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society. That investment (taxes) would yield benefits like "free" medical care, dental care, education, maternity/paternity leaves, pre-k, among other benefits and programs provided for all citizens while also reducing the uncertainty millions of American feel everyday around these topics, the risk that millions of Americans take everyday for these topics, the lack of mobility and the the anxiety and stress that millions of Americans are under because of these issues. Reduced stress, reduced fear, reduced individual risk, reduced inequity in turn yields increased happiness, increased hope, increased societal investment, and increased collective well-being. There is a lot of detail that would go into taxation and what constitutes as "free" but that's something i'm open to discussing as this evolves.

People will often view higher taxes as a burden, and will also view higher taxes that would go towards increased government provided programs as socialist, however, if all citizens and companies truly contribute towards these programs and social programs by using the wealth we all create then it should be viewed as an investment, not a burden in my opinion. You are investing in the collective well-being of all people, including yourself, and if we are all contributing, if we are all putting our money into the effort, if we are all sacrificing a greater percentage of our personal gain for the greater collective good then what you end up with is a shared system that in essence purchases quality of life. No system is perfect, but closing the gap, creating a society that views success as something to share and not hoard, and putting the good of the many above the individual is in my opinion something to work towards.

While I can understand where you're coming from . . . and possibly why . . . I must strongly disagree. Perhaps the greatest gift given to every one of us by our American civilization is the freedom to succeed or fail on our own merit. We are a nation of individuals—not a collectivized identity or hive mind. What that means for each of us is that some of us will rise above others through hard work and sacrifice, while some of us—even family members and friends—might fall, financially, as a consequence of their own bad decisions or lack of effort. Truly this system is a double-edged sword but it is far preferable to most Americans than the alternative.

The flip side of our economic and political systems is collectivism. Collectivism removes individual identity from the average citizen and replaces it with a hive group classification. Individuals in a collective do not work toward the advancement of their own persons, but for the well being of the group as a whole. Trust me, we Americans do not want to go there, not ever.

Seems to me you're reason for forwarding this idea could be out of compassion for those fellow Americans who have less than you do. While contributing time or money to a charity is never a bad choice, the cold, hard truth of the matter is that there's always a reason why some have less and others more; that reason is personal responsibility and effort and hard work or lack thereof.

The only way to collectivize guaranteed success is to remove individual freedom. Most importantly, the freedom to fail or to succeed beyond one's dreams. Collectivization is the locking down of hope, dreams, individual prosperity and improvement over time.

Wisely said. Equality and freedom are mutually exclusive. They are polar opposites. Equality only exists under tyranny.

Not even under tyranny, never in the history of mankind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

I appreciate that but I’m not necessarily talking about Medicare For All in the way that it’s currently used and thought of being used by people like Sanders. I’m talking about changing the whole system along with culture.

You're talking about Communism, as is Sanders. Pogo lied about socialism earlier, the provision of government services are not socialist, the party has just decided to run a campaign of blatant lies in hopes of confusing people so they will more easily accept actual socialism. But what you're proposing is REAL socialism, control of the means of production by the state or central authority. A town or community providing a fire department is a cooperative civic effort. It is not controlled by the state or federal government. But the idea that the federal government run the healthcare system is actual socialism. It will bankrupt us and will provide substandard care.

 

[georgephillip]

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society

Serving the "public good" is something corporations abandoned around the time of the Robber Barons.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary (Chp. 9)

"We need a new economic principle that says that public companies have a responsibility to the public good.

"We had this once upon a time at our founding as a nation, when corporations were chartered by individual states only to serve the public good.

"This tradition was gradually eroded by the courts right around the time of the Robber Barrons.

"The original intention behind the corporation in America’s early years, however, was definitely serving the public good – the 'polar star' of the American Revolution.

"Shareholder primacy emerged out of common law in the mid-nineteenth century, right around the same time stockholders’ agents developed our modern financial statements as a way to keep tabs on how well their principles’ investments were doing.

"These reports were never intended to represent the corporations overall performance.

"They were simply the slice that stockholders cared about – and that’s the part that we are stuck with today, and something all companies are legally required to produce on an ongoing basis."

I simply just meant that companies and corporations would pay much more in taxes and that the money would also contribute to the services for all.

I simply just meant that companies and corporations would pay much more in taxes and that the money would also contribute to the services for all.

I also believe that many corporations pay far less than they should in taxes, and they are also required to maximize profits for the benefit of shareholders instead of their employees.

Wealthy shareholders will not willingly part with any substantial portion of their "unearned wealth."

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"All societies have world views, the 'unconscious mental habits' we use to make sense of the world – so deep, so pervasive as to be invisible.

"Aristocratic society in feudal times based its membership on property ownership.

"Back then, it was land.

"Today it’s wealth, or financial assets.

"Throughout the book, Kelly draws a connection between feudal aristocracy and our modern aristocracy, the wealthy shareholder.

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

"Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements..."

 

[beagle9]

All things public by agreement of society, but not to override or crush our most creative individually driven, and independently driven capitalist system in which is our way of advancing in society or as a nation beyond our wildest imagination.

The government sector has no incentive to push anything, other than to leech off our creativeness and production as so to balance and provide for those that would otherwise fall through the cracks. Then this provision is highly abused by our government, therefore creating tragic dependency that allows a leftist run government to exploit all to well for power.

The government handles what private enterprise cannot. For instance federal highways or the FAA. When the telegraph was invented it was (and had to be) government that made its infrastructure possible, which begat the power grid, which begat the internet. And of course the military and the various other public services mentioned and not mentioned. It's why western countries worldwide had Thalidomide babies and we didn't -- because our government did its job and theirs didn't.

Whelp -- that's Socialism. Defuse the word because you're living in it.

The government was at one time "we the people", and therefore it didn't do anything without our ok and vote upon, but the leftist took our government into a bad place over the years, and the people are attempting to take it back. MAGA

Which "leftist" was that?

You know who the left is, don't act dumb or dumb like a fox.

You said "the leftist". WHO exactly were you talking about?

If the shoe fits wear it right ? Does the shoe fit you ? If not then "don't worry bout it".

 

[beagle9]

This is my first attempt at creating a thread and I wasn't sure if this belongs in Politics or not but since the topic hits on several political issues of today I think it's probably fitting. To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society. That investment (taxes) would yield benefits like "free" medical care, dental care, education, maternity/paternity leaves, pre-k, among other benefits and programs provided for all citizens while also reducing the uncertainty millions of American feel everyday around these topics, the risk that millions of Americans take everyday for these topics, the lack of mobility and the the anxiety and stress that millions of Americans are under because of these issues. Reduced stress, reduced fear, reduced individual risk, reduced inequity in turn yields increased happiness, increased hope, increased societal investment, and increased collective well-being. There is a lot of detail that would go into taxation and what constitutes as "free" but that's something i'm open to discussing as this evolves.

People will often view higher taxes as a burden, and will also view higher taxes that would go towards increased government provided programs as socialist, however, if all citizens and companies truly contribute towards these programs and social programs by using the wealth we all create then it should be viewed as an investment, not a burden in my opinion. You are investing in the collective well-being of all people, including yourself, and if we are all contributing, if we are all putting our money into the effort, if we are all sacrificing a greater percentage of our personal gain for the greater collective good then what you end up with is a shared system that in essence purchases quality of life. No system is perfect, but closing the gap, creating a society that views success as something to share and not hoard, and putting the good of the many above the individual is in my opinion something to work towards.

While I can understand where you're coming from . . . and possibly why . . . I must strongly disagree. Perhaps the greatest gift given to every one of us by our American civilization is the freedom to succeed or fail on our own merit. We are a nation of individuals—not a collectivized identity or hive mind. What that means for each of us is that some of us will rise above others through hard work and sacrifice, while some of us—even family members and friends—might fall, financially, as a consequence of their own bad decisions or lack of effort. Truly this system is a double-edged sword but it is far preferable to most Americans than the alternative.

The flip side of our economic and political systems is collectivism. Collectivism removes individual identity from the average citizen and replaces it with a hive group classification. Individuals in a collective do not work toward the advancement of their own persons, but for the well being of the group as a whole. Trust me, we Americans do not want to go there, not ever.

Seems to me you're reason for forwarding this idea could be out of compassion for those fellow Americans who have less than you do. While contributing time or money to a charity is never a bad choice, the cold, hard truth of the matter is that there's always a reason why some have less and others more; that reason is personal responsibility and effort and hard work or lack thereof.

The only way to collectivize guaranteed success is to remove individual freedom. Most importantly, the freedom to fail or to succeed beyond one's dreams. Collectivization is the locking down of hope, dreams, individual prosperity and improvement over time.

Well said, and exactly right. Thanks

 

[Pogo]

The government handles what private enterprise cannot. For instance federal highways or the FAA. When the telegraph was invented it was (and had to be) government that made its infrastructure possible, which begat the power grid, which begat the internet. And of course the military and the various other public services mentioned and not mentioned. It's why western countries worldwide had Thalidomide babies and we didn't -- because our government did its job and theirs didn't.

Whelp -- that's Socialism. Defuse the word because you're living in it.

The government was at one time "we the people", and therefore it didn't do anything without our ok and vote upon, but the leftist took our government into a bad place over the years, and the people are attempting to take it back. MAGA

Which "leftist" was that?

You know who the left is, don't act dumb or dumb like a fox.

You said "the leftist". WHO exactly were you talking about?

If the shoe fits wear it right ? Does the shoe fit you ? If not then "don't worry bout it".

So --- you don't know who you were talking about?

I mean "the leftist" sounds pretty specific. You must have had somebody in mind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The problem is; the notion of “collective wealth” is always pitched by those bottom feeding...Weird huh?

What gives you the impression that I’m a “bottom feeder”? Collective wealth in the context of my opening post is the overall wealth generated in this country through our system of capitalism and free markets.

Collective poverty, or slavery would be a better term. What you are suggesting is that wealth belong to the state, which means our rules, and we beg for scraps from our masters with no ability nor even hope of ever rising above our bondage. Yes, no one other than the Oligarchs will have more than you, your neighbor will share your misery and hopelessness. Is that what you call "equal?"

In the grave, all men are equal.

 

[beagle9]

This is my first attempt at creating a thread and I wasn't sure if this belongs in Politics or not but since the topic hits on several political issues of today I think it's probably fitting. To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society. That investment (taxes) would yield benefits like "free" medical care, dental care, education, maternity/paternity leaves, pre-k, among other benefits and programs provided for all citizens while also reducing the uncertainty millions of American feel everyday around these topics, the risk that millions of Americans take everyday for these topics, the lack of mobility and the the anxiety and stress that millions of Americans are under because of these issues. Reduced stress, reduced fear, reduced individual risk, reduced inequity in turn yields increased happiness, increased hope, increased societal investment, and increased collective well-being. There is a lot of detail that would go into taxation and what constitutes as "free" but that's something i'm open to discussing as this evolves.

People will often view higher taxes as a burden, and will also view higher taxes that would go towards increased government provided programs as socialist, however, if all citizens and companies truly contribute towards these programs and social programs by using the wealth we all create then it should be viewed as an investment, not a burden in my opinion. You are investing in the collective well-being of all people, including yourself, and if we are all contributing, if we are all putting our money into the effort, if we are all sacrificing a greater percentage of our personal gain for the greater collective good then what you end up with is a shared system that in essence purchases quality of life. No system is perfect, but closing the gap, creating a society that views success as something to share and not hoard, and putting the good of the many above the individual is in my opinion something to work towards.

At the bottom of every discussion/argument about Socialism/Collective versus Freedom/Free Markets is the main difference between you and me... You believe in ASSURING a "zero risk" life for everyone at the expense of others. You said exactly that in your Opening Post.

Nothing is "free".. And YOUR freedom/liberties are as much damaged by taking away your economic choices as they are by restricting your Civil Liberties.. You believe that HUGE govt has the wisdom, compassion, dedication to do even MORE than they've already failed at...

"Democratic Socialism" is what it ALWAYS starts out as.. In Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and all the other "progressive revolutions"... What happens when the economy crashes, we LOSE our lead in innovation, research and products -- and the people start to "collectively slide" to the bottom of standards of world living?

These "do-gooders" need to take more choices and powers from you.. Maybe start to control speech, round up dissidents. AND SOON -- your choices and freedom are no more...

You want everyone else to "lift up" a person who maybe break-danced or tokked their way thru HS and quit at the 11th grade to a RISK FREE life. OR worse, depend on monstrous, inept, and slow-moving govt to make this happen.. Or even a college grad that chose Music History as a major rather than a profession that is MORE VALUED by society with concomitant increased financial security as society rewards them for what they can contribute, not what "bureaucrats" can do for them..

Most of the time, the folks who BELIEVE this also have a bloated view of what government is capable of. A govt that has MISMANAGED EVERY "UNIVERSAL" program, should NEVER be trusted with MORE "universal" programs.. A government that could not produce a "Marketplace Health Insurance" website for less than a $Bill and MONTHS late IS NOT your "technology benchmark" for success..

I've got some experience with the ACA Obamacare program.. It is the MOST INTRUSIVE and LEAST transparent way of CHOOSING your healthcare.. In fact, there are FEW choices that even make sense. And the plans get WORSE EVERY YEAR... And let's not make that about "political stunts" and party wars.. The FACT IS --- Americans cannot count on their govt to even FUNCTION anymore...

AND YOU WANT MORE OF THIS???? Are you CRAZY????

I’m not a socialist or a communist though and I am supportive of free markets. What I am saying is to use the success of the free market and the wealth gained through capitalism to be partnered with a increased societal effort to reduce inequity, reduce some the negative aspects of individualism by considering the collective good in what we do as a country, and make it so that all citizens regardless of their income contribute to the systems that we all will equally use. Its capitalism but a more compassionate capitalism in my opinion.

I will say that I failed in my first post to mention the cultural change and the mindset change that would be necessary for this to work. As we are right now in this country with the deep divides and conflicting ideas of what is “American” or not it would be unrealistic unfortunately in my opinion. The key change would have to be a new mindset that values the good of the many over the success of the individual. Let me be clear im not talking about shared misery but instead creating a much larger middle class by closing income gaps and having everyone invest into the shared systems. If we are all invested and using the same systems we all have a more equal motivation to have it succeed in my opinion.

A dreamer, but a very misguided dreamer at that. The only way it works, is when good people do good in the sight of those who are up and coming, and what this does is instill the good character, the hard work ethic, and the influencing of those to hopefully follow in the footsteps of those that came before them.

Rewarding bad choices and bad decision making is absolutely wrong or the wrong way to go. Holding the good back because of those who make bad choices, and make bad decisions is definitely the wrong way to go.

The merit system as is run with compassion and hope for your fellow citizen is the way to go, but the citizen has GOT to apply themselves. It's plain and simple........ Robbing the rich or anyone else in order to give it to another without the person's consent for which it was robbed from is big time wrong. Taking our taxes, and running a corrupt and highly inefficient system is also big-time wrong, but here we are in the fall out finally.

 

[SAYIT]

What's wrong with the merit system that gauges a person's character before just handing the person money in which the person would use wrongfully or in evil ways ??

Who gets to decide who is evil and who is good? Animal loving vegans who are obsessed with running the trains on time?

If you can't define what evil and good is (or) decern between the two, then you need help my friend. People aren't dumb, but then again by today's examples I'm probably big time wrong on that one. LOL

Actually, when people act collectively, they can be quite stupid.

There are people who believe you can be evil if your skin is a different color, or if you are a different religion, or if you smoke, or drink, or eat meat. Some people think you're evil based on how you love another adult.

When those people are in charge, how will they decide who is, and isn't, worthy of receiving their share of the government's 'gifts'?

Collectivist Utopian (a/k/a Workers Paradise) "thinking" never accounts for human nature and variances of it. They somehow believe everyone wants to and must live according to their insanity because they cannot conceive that others may prefer to live by their own. Forget the historical catastrophes born of trying to make one size life every, anyone who has experienced and observed gov't already knows that allowing big, greasy, corrupt central gov't to chose winners (beneficiaries) and losers is a recipe for disaster. Regrettably experience has also taught me that those who promote "big, beautiful, gov't" simply ignore the realities and plow ahead.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupt absolutely." - Lord Acton

 

[georgephillip]

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society

Serving the "public good" is something corporations abandoned around the time of the Robber Barons.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary (Chp. 9)

"We need a new economic principle that says that public companies have a responsibility to the public good.

"We had this once upon a time at our founding as a nation, when corporations were chartered by individual states only to serve the public good.

"This tradition was gradually eroded by the courts right around the time of the Robber Barrons.

"The original intention behind the corporation in America’s early years, however, was definitely serving the public good – the 'polar star' of the American Revolution.

"Shareholder primacy emerged out of common law in the mid-nineteenth century, right around the same time stockholders’ agents developed our modern financial statements as a way to keep tabs on how well their principles’ investments were doing.

"These reports were never intended to represent the corporations overall performance.

"They were simply the slice that stockholders cared about – and that’s the part that we are stuck with today, and something all companies are legally required to produce on an ongoing basis."

I simply just meant that companies and corporations would pay much more in taxes and that the money would also contribute to the services for all.

Private enterprise exists and benefits because of collective effort; roads, mail, police, etc. Those who benefit disproportionately from collective effort naturally have a bigger debt.

Private enterprise exists and benefits because of collective effort; roads, mail, police, etc. Those who benefit disproportionately from collective effort naturally have a bigger debt.

There's also a more fundamental aspect of capitalism's inherent contrast between socialized production and privatized appropriation:

Socialization (Marxism) - Wikipedia

"Progressive socialization of the forces of production under capitalism eventually comes into conflict with the persistence of relations of production based on private property; this contradiction between socialized production and private appropriation of the social product forms the impetus for the socialization of property relations (socialism).[1]"

 

[flacaltenn]

I’m not a socialist or a communist though and I am supportive of free markets. What I am saying is to use the success of the free market and the wealth gained through capitalism to be partnered with a increased societal effort to reduce inequity, reduce some the negative aspects of individualism by considering the collective good in what we do as a country, and make it so that all citizens regardless of their income contribute to the systems that we all will equally use. Its capitalism but a more compassionate capitalism in my opinion.

That's all great and I support that.. I think we both want some of that.. Even Libertarians like myself. However, I don't want that to mandated and "managed" thru assertion of POLITICAL power.. In attempts at "fairness and social justice" it will result in LOSS of choice/freedom and lack of motivation for "customer service" when dealing with govt agencies even more powerful than they are now..

A lot can accomplished thru free market choice and incentivizing companies to make provisions for lower income people and spread some of the wealth THAT way.. MANY companies already do this WITHOUT govt "help" and get too little credit for their innovations.. For instance, the left has a vendetta against Walmart.. But Walmart's demographics ARE the lower income Americans and the company has served them well.. Walmart has done FAR MORE to "reduce the cost of prescriptions drugs than Congress ever has.. In FACT, their pricing is SO good, that MANY big insurance companies feature THEM as a "priority provider"..

Another example is my local electric company.. They started a "round-up" program that allows customers to donate every month a bit to supplement lower income users.. Just donating the change to the next higher dollar, raises MILLIONS of dollars for subsidy to the poor..

Companies are not "social justice" vehicles. But they DO take risks.. And instead of doing the Nike/Gillette "virtue signaling" and getting political --- If they spent that "image creation" on REAL social reform rather than taking POLITICAL SIDES -- A LOT could be done...