<p>Dr. Horse, while it is true that Obama will likely have to spend more and raise taxes, his administration will take better care of you should you ever need it. He's spending more on education, so you can get a higher paying job and be more prepared for it. He's helping build infrastructure, which will help you avoid insane gas prices. He wants to spend more on health care, so if you are ever injured you'll be helped by it. In the long run, Obama's economic program is better for we the people. Also, he'll help with the environment, making sure it's there for us in the future. After all, our entire economy is based on the environment, like it or not. So, even though you'll likely have higher taxes, you'll be better cared for.</p>
<p>^ What if I don't care about other people? What motivation would I have to support such a plan?</p>
<p>The knowledge that other people are willing to take care of you. Also, the fact that you suddenly become a vital member of society, so it becomes very unlikely that anyone will want to maim you in any way. But you're right, people have to show compassion, selflessness, and generosity to live like this. Unfortunately it hasn't worked in the past because people are greedy and always want to be "the best". It's just a beautiful idea that humanity isn't ready to put into practice yet. That's why it's always been run by a dictator in the past.</p>
<p>Well, what if someone didn't care about safety, could they refuse to pay taxes on the premise that most people never end up really needing police officers or firefighters? I think Obama's plan is good considering how many people can be helped by his policies that target the middle and lower class which end up being more than 3/4 of America. In addition, I think at times people shouldn't have a choice if they choose to be cared for. For instance, my college requires me to have health care whether I like it or not because they want me to be healthy and know a lot of young people would love to save $2000 a year knowing that, in all probability, they'll be A-OK. Likewise, because of the massive potential to protect people using Obama's policies (most Americans given these economic times are just a hardship away from complete disaster) I think it's inconsequential that some people don't care about others or want to save money. Obama's policies would be basically insurance that if something goes wrong with your family you don't have to drastically change your lifestyle.</p>
<p>A Marxist? It’s ON!
Under your system, everyone is given the minimum needed for their survival, regardless of their productive capacity. So if they don’t produce enough to keep themselves alive, the burden falls on someone of greater ability. Under such a system, it is the immoral who profit – they can slack off, fake incompetence, it’s not their problem, society will pay for it. Under a system that rewards evil, how can you expect men to remain good?</p>
<p>You’ve said that true Communism has not and cannot be put into practice. This is true – but it’s not human nature that’s to blame, it’s your moral code.</p>
<p>People are inherently good. They like helping out and doing something positive. Try doing something genuinely kind and notice how you feel afterwards. The system doesn't reward evil, the people have to do something. Just because they are unable to do one thing doesn't mean they can do nothing. Also, the people would realize the country would have to be productive enough to support everyone or everyone loses.</p>
<p>Ok. My name is Max
I hail from Long Island, NY. and as most of you know New York is the bluest of all blue states out there.</p>
<p>But contrary to that, I support John McCain in his candidacy for President of the United States of America.</p>
<p>Main reason is Obama's tax plan is ridiculous especially for my circumstances. He plans to put the tax burden on the supposed "Rich", and unfortunately my family falls into that bracket which means that our taxes will skyrocket. McCain's tax policy seems more reasonable as it relieves all social classes equally, as opposed to Obama who wants to put all the burden on the people that work their asses off.
Next, my dad is a business executive at a fairly large software firm.
McCain also has proposed a sharp reduction in corporate taxes. He would pare the two highest corporate tax brackets, 34% and 35%, down to 25%.
Meanwhile Obama promises to do the opposite, and a heavy tax on companies who employ overseas (as a way to end globalisation I assume)</p>
<p>^so you're saying that the harder you work, the more money you make?
"as opposed to Obama who wants to put all the burden on the people that work their asses off."</p>
<p>Usually, the EXACT opposite is true. The proletariats are the ones WoRkInG their asses off. </p>
<p>yeaaaahhhhhh ok. Obama's tax policy rewards WORK, not wealth.</p>
<p>kristin, you're wrong.</p>
<p>mankind is inherently evil. </p>
<p>adam and eve.
lord of the flies.
heart of darkness.
mayor of casterbridge.
but more importantly, especially if you are christian, adam and eve.
if not, literature points to the inherent evil of man kind.</p>
<p>man is driven by self interest. that's an animal instinct, something very natural. that self interest leads to greed, sloth, and lust, things that promote selfishness. the good people out there work to be good. it is easy to sit back and do nothing (evil, indifference) but those who become activists, volunteers all get up and do something, an action. therefore man isnt inherently (naturally) good, but evil. </p>
<p>even though evil is such a harsh word, i still stand by the point that man is not inherently good.</p>
<p>mathmajor92688, there is absolutely no absolute evil. It is a mere anomaly perceived when people differ on a given subject or action.
On the other hand, there is altruistic good.
Studies</a> show people underestimate the willingness of others to help them out</p>
<p>@Baelor (post #22)
A person who doesn't care about anyone else should recognize that the partial compromise to society will work out in their ultimate favour. If the person wishes to abandon society by ignoring its constituents (people about which to care), then the person is abandoning the machinery that gives them every "right" they know - whence they are subject to unrecognized death by natural proceedings, so long as society does not care about them. It is a very harsh deal indeed to abandon all fellows.</p>
<p>geeknerd, that article does not prove that man is inherently good.</p>
<p>you're right. the devil is not evil. </p>
<p>maybe evil was the wrong word. </p>
<p>selfish is the better word. man is inherently driven by self interest. it is hard to argue that. </p>
<p>Inherently, we want to satisfy our needs first. However, in the cases that we dont, it takes work and action. That work and action leads me to state that man is inherently not good or else man would go help everyone else first, and then himself. but i really just think thats not how things work.</p>
<p>if there was a decision to be made that could possibly benefit you or your friend, all else equal, you would work that decision in your favor. why? because man is selfish.</p>
<p>In a Marxist society, what happens when society fails to produce enough for everyone's survival? When there's not enough food, who gets to eat?<br>
And who performs the jobs no one wants? Who are the garbage men, the janitors, the sewage workers?<br>
And what becomes of the architect who wants to build mansions? Is he reduced to constructing the thatched huts that are the bare minimum required for survival? If he is allowed to design mansions, who gets to live in them? If they're left empty, what is his contribution to society?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately it hasn't worked in the past because people are greedy and always want to be "the best".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
People are inherently good. They like helping out and doing something positive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hello, contradiction?</p>
<p>
[quote]
there is absolutely no absolute evil. It is a mere anomaly perceived when people differ on a given subject or action.
On the other hand, there is altruistic good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If there is an objective good, the opposite of that must be evil.</p>
<p>thank you stella, better said.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If there is an objective good, the opposite of that must be evil.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I deny objective good, but are you sure that an objective idea necessarily has a unique opposite?</p>
<p>
[quote]
selfish is the better word. man is inherently driven by self interest. it is hard to argue that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed, though there are those conditioned into acting otherwise. (My own opinion is that 'ultimate selfishness' is "good", but I'm looking for an exercise in argument).</p>
<p>well ultimate selfishness would not work in a marxist society</p>
<p>
[quote]
I deny objective good, but are you sure that an objective idea necessarily has a unique opposite?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Altruism, which you defined to be good, certainly has an opposite - sadism. Even if it doesn't, has to be the option to remove/diminish it. The absence of a good thing could be considered evil.</p>
<p>Also: In post 30, you expressed you belief in "altruistic good". Now, you're saying ultimate selfishness is good. What gives?</p>
<p>Lollypop! I'm presenting an argument; it's not mine. I don't believe anything, but I seriously do not want to digress. Back to topic.</p>
<p>hahah you are presenting an argument thats not yours? hah</p>
<p>I'm not contradicting myself. People want to help others, provided all their needs are met first. Though some might not recognize it, most people do not feel their lives are complete until they are giving back in some way. And with 6 billion people in the world there can not possibly be a job no one wants, the people who want them might just be rarer.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that there aren't some people who want to be garbage men. I'm just saying there aren't enough of them to fill the global need for garbage men. Also, you haven't answered the more important question: what would happen if your society didn't produce enough for the survival of all its members?</p>
<p>I don't get it. First, you imply that the main obstacle to pure Communism is that mankind is too "greedy" to carry it out, but now you're saying it won't be a problem. If that is the case, why does Communism remain only a "beautiful idea than humanity isn't ready to put into practice"?</p>