The great failure of Marx is his inability to realize that the capitalist system actually creates wealth for the workers as well, and raises their standard of living. The capitalists may control the means of production, but by maximizing efficiency the free market system generally creates greater value for every one, not just the capitalists.
I didn’t read anything even remotely like that in his post. American society has always tried to take care of its disadvantaged members. Americans donated over $295 billion (with a ‘b’) last year. This is not a new concept. We do it because we can (and should). You don’t know what circumstances plunge people into poverty or hunger. For those who think the hungry are just lazy people, here are some stats (again, from the Greater Chicago Food Depository):
Not everyone who takes advantage of a food pantry will need to use it all the time. Most people use it to get over a rough spot in their life. I was that person on a couple of occasions, and I was employed both times.
Just a quick summary of Der Trihs major argument here, which I will present in single convenient sentence.
“If someone does not give away their wealth, they are a damned bastard who deserves to be stolen from and killed.”
Personally, I’m opposed to this statement. I guess everyone has a right to their own opinion, but this one in particular seems goofier than most.
The idea that successful people have “benefited unfairly” from society and that they are obligated to “give back” certainly does mean that the rich owe the poor something, beyond their obligations to other human beings.
That’s just it. It’s not about what you think you can torch carelessly. You have things right now that you think you need, but I bet a lot of are essentially wants in the eyes of those less fortunate then YOU.
If you have 3 cans of soup for the week. To you, these are things you need. To the man with nothing (using your logic), it is justified to forcefully take two of them from you for him and his family. He has more mouths to feed after all. Where does it end o’ wise one?
Yeah, in Pearl Buck’s novel The Good Earth I seem to remember a part where the protagonist is discovered to have a very small amount of food (IIRC it’s a small number of beans or a small bit of rice) with which to feed his family. However, his neighbors have absolutely nothing, so they steal some of his food.
Not to speak for Der Trihs, but it’s Robin Hood Syndrome. You would steal if that was your only means of obtaining food. Were you to be in that situation, would you steal from someone who could afford the loss or would you take the last bag of rice from your neighbor who’s trying to feed three kids?
They stole ALL of his food, forcing him to slaughter his horse, if I remember correctly.
Not that it’s food at all, but Sears/KMart has a policy that bugs me. One of my neighbors works for them and wanted to get my mom a gazebo at a low cost. But the company’s policy is to destroy all unsold gazebos and probably many other items rather than let employees purchase them, even when they couldn’t sell the darn things in the store and they could have made a bit of money by selling to said employees.
It’s such a waste.
Wow. I worked as a contractor for like 4 years at Sears (but left just before the K-mart takeover). I was not aware of that policy, but it’s the height of stupidity.
Except that I don’t have a huge pile of stuff to give out that I have no use for.
Because of course the only possible reason for being poor is that they are lazy. In the world view of people like you, there is no such thing as luck, much less people getting ahead dishonestly. Nope; the well of are well off because they are superior to the poor. And the poor are less than animals.
Except that if neither compassion nor ethics matters, then the law and rights don’t matter either. Again, you are trying to have it both ways. If we live in an amoral dog-eat-dog society, then all that matters is force; the mob doesn’t have a right to rob me, but neither does it not have a right. The only question is can it rob me ?
But if the rights, needs and desires of other people do matter, then the mob shouldn’t attack the farmer, the law matters and unsellable food should be distributed.
But they aren’t destroying wealth; it’s not wealth if you can’t do anything with it.
This argument doesn’t make any sense. No one is “trying to have it both ways.” If I refuse to sell a product, that’s my right as a property owner, it’s my product, not yours. There are clear laws saying that no one has a right to seize my property through extralegal means, period. Not because someone really wants my property, not because I have an abundance of it, not even if someone will die without out. There isn’t any “two ways” about it, I’m arguing that society has to respect the rule of law and private property rights. If government wants to tax me, or redistribute my wealth, so be it, but it isn’t “wanting it both ways” to want the rule of law to govern society. The rule of law exists precisely because we can’t let people start doing stuff like murdering people and taking their stuff just because they really want it. There’s nothing I can do as an individual that justifies someone stealing my property. Theft is always wrong, period. Refusing to be charitable may be wrong too, but it isn’t illegal, theft is.
Actually, it seems to me that, rather than demonstrating that ‘no one is trying to have it both ways’, you’ve just spelled out very clearly that there IS an entity that is trying to have it both ways.
And that entity is: ‘The Law’.
Even in cases of self-preservation? You wouldn’t steal food if you were starving and it was the only way you could obtain food for yourself or your family (and someone who had a surplus wouldn’t give you any)? Feh. I don’t believe you.
Laws aren’t always right or just. Protest comes in many forms.
While I disagree with the outright characterization of the FDR administration (topic for another forum for sure, but safe to say the world economy had crashed and burned), and I’m surprised no-one else noted this - you at least touched on the salient point that the markets were far different in 1932 than they are in 2002, there were no price support payments or land set asides, payment in kinds or government subsidies, welfare or anything of the sort, for anyone. “Work or starve” isn’t hyperbole really. Various church groups and philanthropic organizations provided some relief, as it was called in those days. But thousands and thousands were completely broke, “losing the farm”, because there were no markets to sell their produce.
It is one reason why economists loathe deflation. People have some money, but they are too scared to spend it, credit is close to nonexistent. Prices of all goods were on a steady decline, so if you need a new widget, why buy now when it will be cheaper next month? This leads to a vicious cycle of employee layoffs and resultant business slowdown which then is magnified and run through again. Rinse, lather repeat.
Ah, finally at the heart of it then. It is the posters casting a long accusing finger from a comfortable desk chair 70 years in the future that are saying must. As in, farmers that have food they can’t sell must give it too the poor or be labeled selfish jerks as well as all those who support them.
I’m foggy on the history here, what year did farming become a charity?
And sometimes I suspect I hear ivory-tower liberals declare it is the inalienable right of all poor people to get whatever they feel is owed them.
Kalhoun, I suspect like most people you have Saturday and Sunday off from work. Please report to your local soup kitchen bright and early. There are hungry poor people and there is no reason you can’t help…it costs you nothing and you have the weekend off of work anyway right? Also, bring rubber gloves and a plunger, it’s backing up in here.
I never said I would or would not steal out of self-preservation. To be honest I have no idea, I’m pretty capable of getting my own food through fishing, hunting, and foraging. But let’s assume I had a family to feed and had no such skills or ability to use them, maybe I’d steal, maybe I wouldn’t, I really do not know.
I still know that my stealing would be illegal and the government would be perfectly in the right to punish me for it.
Explain, how is the law trying to have it both ways by saying the person A can’t steal from person B and person B can’t steal from person A? The law shouldn’t make exceptions just because person A is rich and person B is poor.
If we feel that the rich person should be giving more to society, the law can reflect that by instituting higher taxes.
Assuming that they’d be selling them to the employees at a discount (which is the only way this makes sense. Otherwise, why wouldn’t your mom just buy one?), this makes sense using the same logic that not giving away apples makes sense. If you give away (or sell at a reduced price) the apples you don’t sell, you give your customers an incentive to not buy them at full price. If you let your employees buy merchandise at a reduced price when it doesn’t sell, you give them an incentive to not sell that merchandise and you give their friends an incentive to not buy it.
As has been demonstrated, there were sound economic reasons for destroying the produce that do benefit the farmers. So now we’re simply arguing how much benefit is justifiable for keeping your stuff.
Bzzzt - try again. Nice strawman, though.
If, as you claim, rich people are obligated to “give back” to the poor, above and beyond merely fellow-human moralizing, that implies that they somehow leech off the poor. Cite, please.