I Support Revolutionary Democratic Socialism

any community lives by the rules set by it's weakest member. So, if the strongest members of society aid the weakest, the weakest members become stronger, and the strength of society overall increases.

That's a description, not an explanation. Exactly how does your need become my obligation? Is it by armed agents of the state who force my "cooperation" or some other means. Personally, I don't agree with the Christian logic behind your description. I feel no need to help others and can't find a compelling natural reason to do so. Am I not free to keep what's mine or are my possessions subject to your needs?

Nah, nothing sinister like that. Just high taxes for the wealthy (you can afford it). And, it works. There are real world examples like Denmark and Sweden, who have some of the highest tax rates in the world, but also the highest happiness, lowest crime and even highest life expectancy. You can for sure keep what is yours (minus the tax)

It doesn't work, Sweden is in the process of failing right now. I'm always surprised that the examples of, so-called, successful socialism are always the whitest countries in Europe. Got any African, Latin American or Asian examples?

The twentieth century was a 100 year-long experiment in socialism. The world tried Gramsian socialism, Fabian socialism, National socialism (yes, despite what the academics try to tell you, the Nazis were socialists) Soviet socialism, Sino-socialism and a dozen or more tin-pot socialisms around the world. They all failed and left 100 million dead civilians murdered by their own governments.

No thanks, I can read and understand experimental results.

I'm not vouching for socialism, I know that doesn't work. I'm vouching for social democracy. The problem with all the examples that you provided is that they are all totalitarian. The reason nobody uses African, Latin American or Asian examples is that the are all dictatorships, not democracies. And I'll give you two Asian examples, Japan and South Korea

Okay, I disagree with your examples but lets go back to my fisrt, still unanswered question. How is it that my work is to be used for your purposes? What claim do you have on my possessions that is greater than my claim?

Suppose I proposed that I only wanted to sleep with your wife 10% of the time. Would that be fair, equitable and acceptable? If not, what percentage would be fair, equitable and acceptable?

It's not that your work is to be used for my purposes, it's that OUR work is to be used for OUR purposes
On the subject of marriage, that is an entirely kettle of fish. And I'm not suggesting sharing possessions, only income. Higher earners tend to be higher consumers too, so they use roads and schools and hospitals more than lower earners. Say I'm a road worker and you're a doctor. You earn 3 times as much as I do, but you use the roads I built every day, but I only use the doctor twice a year. If I stop making roads, you are much more disadvantaged than if you stop practicing medicine. It is in your best interest to look after the little guy, because it means you have better access to the services.

Your example is flawed. The road worker uses the roads as much as the doctor does and the doctor sees her doctor twice a year as well. Try again.

Say you earn 25K a year, 5k is tax, pay $400 a week in rent, $200 a month power and $80 a week food. Now imagine you get cancer and can't work. Your insurance only covers you for six months. In a social democracy, you wouldn't have to worry about the costs of medical care or whether you had a home to go back to, because you'd be covered. In a capitalist state, you'd be out on your ass after six months, dying of cancer on the street. As to why you should feel obligated to help, because it's basic human decency. We all have the right to What are educationn clean water, free speech, basic healthcare, a place to live and some people, through no fault of their own don't. It should distress you to see others having their rights violated.

there is no such thing as a "right" that necessarily obligates someone else. You gave a right to free speech but I'm not obligated to buy you a megaphone. You have a right to keep and bear arms but I'm not obligated to buy you a Glock. You have the right to [b]seek[/b] health care but no one is obligated to sell it to you. By what mechanism is a doctor or nurse obligated to meet your needs simply because they possess the skill to do so? You might rely on what you call basic human decency but your definition of basic human decency is your definition. I don't see the word "decency" in the Constitution and I certainly don't see it defined.

Let me make this simpler for you. What is the basis for someone's claim on my income or any portion of it that is superior to my. What portion of what I've earned do you have a right to and why. And let's get one thing straight; I don't give a rats ass what bad luck befalls a stranger. That's not my problem and the solution is definitely not my obligation no matter how nice you think that would be.

Personally, I have no right to it. The community as whole, on the other hand is. As a member of society, you are obligated to contribute to the running of the society, whether that be paying the civil servants, maintaining and improving the infrastructure or feeding the hungry. If you lived entirely off the grid, didn't use any communal things and weren't part of society, then you could claim that you deserve to keep all your income. Even beneficiaries pay tax. The wealthy are taxed higher because they use more, and therefore contribute more to the deterioration of communal resources. And just because you don't care, doesn't mean you don't have an obligation. I'm also sure the the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution and is fairly clearly stated. The fact that so many Americans aren't protected by their own law is disgusting

You make too many unsupported statement but they are all descriptive rather than explanatory of the current situation. I already know I am subject to taxation at the point of a gun what you have yet to even touch on, let alone answer, is this:

By what [b]right[/b] does anyone or any group, however defined, have a claim on me, my work, my income or my assets. And please don't try to tell me my assets aren't taxed, I just paid over $8K in property tax for my home. My work is taxed in the form of income tax. Tell me the moral justification for this. [b]Don't further waste my time by telling me I have to pay, tell me the ethical process by which another person's need becomes my obligation.[/b]

BTW, one glaring error you have made several times is the assertion that the rich use more services. Clearly the poor do. Also, even if your specious claim were true, a flat tax on a higher income would cover it, there is no justification for the government larceny of a graduated tax.

Okay, the moral justification for taxing you is based on the lowest common denominator theory. If we, as a group, however defined, could trust that everybody would willingly pay their share of the common expenses, such as maintenance of schools, roads, hospitals, national parks etc, then we would. Naturally, we can't trust that, so the decision has to be taken away from each individual for the better of the collective. In philosophy, it is called utilitarianism. We tax the rich more heavily for two reasons: they can afford it and they consume more. In response to your BTW, I said the rich use more, period. They use more gas, eat more food, have larger houses, own more vehicles and generally fuck everything up a lot more than the poor, who can barely afford one car, let alone 6. The poor frequent public transport over private, hardly travel and eat more basic food.

Let's say that you are a member of a golf club. The golf club has an annual membership fee which is based on how often you play (the more you play, the cheaper per game the fee is, but more overall.) The fees are used, in various ways to keep the course in good condition, upskill young golfers, pay the groundstaff and build programs to encourage more players to join the club. Are you happy to pay the fee?

The golf club analogy is inoperative since that's a voluntary association. Your own words, however support my position. You said,

[quote]Naturally, we can't trust that, so the decision has to be taken away from each individual for the better of the collective[/quote].

Since it's inescapable that this taking amounts to state-sponsored larceny, the only possible mitigating position is to do so as little possible. This requires a very tiny government designed to do the very least to serve the basic needs of a self-sufficient population. That's the one our Founders designed via the Constitution.

The advantages are numerous. Only big governments can wage big wars. Small governments are inherently less prone to massive corruption, entrenched ruling elites and crony capitalism. A population of individuals used to meeting their own needs is in every way a more admirable population.

All governments are based upon larceny. The less larceny the better so the greatest moral position is to favor smaller, less demanding governments that serve a more capable population.

I never said anything about the SIZE of the government, just what its role was. I agree with this point:
"The advantages are numerous. Only big governments can wage big wars. Small governments are inherently less prone to massive corruption, entrenched ruling elites and crony capitalism" I also agree that having a more capable population, which is what I am arguing for, is better. To upskill the population, they need access to education, infrastructure and other basic needs. There needs to be an equal opportunity for everybody to have access to it, which is why it should be state-funded, coming back in turn to why it is morally right for you to contribute to society via you taxes. You can't have a highly skilled, highly independent population without providing the means for them to be skilled and independent. I'm not arguing for a Communist state, like the USSR or North Korea. The primary aim of a government is to protect its people. To go back to a previous point, I'm not suggesting that people who are providing a service, like doctors or teachers, give their expertise away for free, but rather that they are paid from a communal pool, like other civil servants. This would allow genuine equal opportunity for every member of society.

The services you want and the draconian control you advocate over people's freedom to prosper are marks of a large, invasive government. The appropriate role of government is to protect the border, print the money, keep the roads fit and maybe one or two other functions. So long as people obey the minimal basic laws, fairness is only to be found in the Courts. Equal opportunity is an illusory goal; we are not equal people.

[b]Equal opportunity is an illusory goal; we are not equal people[/b]·
We all have strengths and weaknesses. We should all be given the same CHANCE to succeed. Why should my kids not have the same opportunity to better themselves than yours simply because your 40 hours worked a week pays three times as much as my 40 hours a week? You are advocating for an EXCLUSIVE society, while I am advocating for an INCLUSIVE one. You want the ability to do what you want, have as much stuff as you and fuck everyone else. It's that kind of thinking leads to society collapsing. I recommend that you read Collapse, by Jared Diamond. In all honesty, I would actually go further than what I stated at first, but I have to cater to the capitalist mindset that the whole world seems so fixated on. There has to be a balance on what people NEED versus what people WANT.

you are advocating for a society where someone who works through years of education after high school should have no advantage over someone who drops out of high school. Or where someone who has a near unique skill should not be able to capitalize on that skill. There is no importance to how hard someone works, the importance is what value that work has to others. Should a major league pitcher make more than a high school French teacher? Absolutely because people would rather pay to watch the pitcher pitch than to watch the teacher teach.

Skills, abilities and talents are not distributed fairly or equally. That's the reality. Trying to level the field by taking from some to give to others is larceny. You have no right to do so.

there is no way a MLB player should be paid anywhere near as much as they are paid, or more than teachers, nurses or doctors. I'm not advocating for a society where someone who works through university has no advantage, because they have the advantage of being able to work in fields that pay more. What I am advocating for is people who work full time (whatever they do) being able to provide for their families. I would prefer to tax business higher than individual, giving businesses incentive to pay their employees more, so they pay less tax on the business. This in turn means the employees have more income, so can afford to live in more comfort. This ridiculous obsession with growth (economically speaking) drives society towards collapse, as they inevitably use beyond their means. There is no sense of 'enoughness' and that is messed up. I'm not saying the people at the top should be paid less, I'm saying the people at the bottom should be paid more. There are enough resources for every single person to be able to live in comfort, but due the excesses of the mega wealthy, the rest of the population have to fight for scraps. It's why America has both a child obesity problem and a child malnutrition problem. Both could be fixed with a redistribution of wealth. Hell man, I'd back a global currency and the abolition of countries. We're all human, and we are all different. We work better when we use the differences for strength over discrimination

Who are you to determine the value of anything? By what right, skill or training are you capable of determining the value of anything. Is a 4 caret diamond worth more that a gallon of water? It depends on the circumstances. Three days lost in the desert and you might gladly trade a large diamond for a gallon of water. A Major league pitcher is worth whatever someone will pay. A high school French teacher is worth whatever someone will pay. You can spatter paint on a canvas and demand what a Jackson Pollack sells for but it's only worth what someone will pay.

It's more work to shovel a driveway with a tablespoon than a snowplow but simply because someone works hard does not give them a claim on a living wage. Work is only worth what someone else will pay. You have neither the right nor the expertise nor the knowledge nor the standing to redistribute someone else's wealth; no one does. Only the market can truly decide who gets what for their work.

I've found, in life, that those most eager to share the wealth typically bring the least to the table to share.