So, Bernie Sanders' "social democracy"

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

the golden rule. now i don't mind paying taxes to help people. but some people do mind paying taxes and they view it as being robbed. forcing them to pay, when that is not their wish, is the opposite of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Americans (christian or not) are not adverse to helping others. But they want credit for it individually. They want ot be able to say, "No one forced me to, I chose of my own free will."

This feeds the ego and sense of individual rightiousness.

What is funny is that I noticed in the social democracy I currently live in, the people still feel this way, even though their help is funnelled through taxes! They consider that they wanted and voted for this- no one is forcing them to pay, the government is their servant not their master. It is the arm which they control. No one is going to look at their hand going into their pocket and angerly proclaim it a robber!

But we americans feel too distant from our government, it is not a prolongation of ourselves. We made it big and strong, to intimidate other countries and peoples, and now it is so big it hasn't much to do with little humans anymore. It's bigger than us, separate, overbearing in it's power.

That is what now makes me laugh when I hear my compatriots proclaim that socialism means bigger government- from where I stand now, I see it as the opposite. You really can't get bigger than the American government is, despite it's values on individual merit and capitalism. These are what enabled it to grow as an entity that pounds it's fist upon the world.

a reply to: Bluesma

no, honestly: when you force people to give all or part of their labor to someone else, without their consent, that is actually theft and slavery. but if the person isn't being forced and doing so willingly, that is not slavery and theft. that's charity. i'm not sure what to call our system. since it's neither entirely viewed as forced (cause it's individually viewed in a different light, person to person) or entirely viewed as charity. it's an odd mixture of both and a bunch of variants inbetween.

personally, if someone says, because i am willing to pay taxes to help others that i'm perpetuating the theft from and enslavement of their family, i really can't argue the point because we all know just cause a government says to do x, y and z, doesn't necessarily make it right. since stealing/theft (and slavery) are all bad things, i can see why they view it that way. on the other hand, i have no problems paying it myself, so ....

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Bluesma

no, honestly: when you force people to give all or part of their labor to someone else, without their consent, that is actually theft and slavery. but if the person isn't being forced and doing so willingly, that is not slavery and theft.

I think the difference lies in the concept of consent- if you vote, you are consenting, for these people.
If you pay for someone today, and they pay for you tomorrow, then it is exchange and interdependence.
But since we like to pigeonhole ourselves as either have's or have-not's; virtuous and hardworking, or immoral and lazy, no one wants to admit their human failings, weaknesses, or vulnerabilities. Being powerful is important.

So no one wants to see it as exchange, in which they too, will receive in return. Help is only for the weak, who shall remain weak all their lives. We love the extreme poles of everything. You're either a winner or a loser... moderation and middle ground is fence sitting. Fence sitting is a sin in our culture, is it not? It is indecisiveness, lack of action, too much thinking, and god knows that is bad when what is wanted for us is impulse buying above all else!

a reply to: Bluesma

So far I've found your opinions and descriptions of our social nature to be very well thought out even though you're shooting from the hip so to speak. You've obviously given these things much consideration at various times in the past and now have come to a fairly clear understanding of them.

Even better is that you've seen this from both sides of the fence too so you understand the mentality of both sides personally but also the change from one to the other and the misconceptions you had about both.

That's all I really have to say I guess. But I'm enjoying this discussion very much.

a reply to: mOjOm

Why thank you! I have been forced to consider things at a level I wouldn't have if I'd stayed in one place- and frankly if I'd had any idea I'd have to do that, I might not have moved.

But I walked away from writing here this morning and laughed to myself, saying (yes outloud, I've got the habit of conversing with myself) "I'm sure no one reads the lengthy crap I write. I wouldn't. Just seeing all that text is tiring at first glance. "But I shrugged and figured that's okay with me, I get fulfillment from expressing myself, not in being heard.
So, kudos to you for actually taking the time to read such ramblings- you are a patient spirit, and probably gain much from that everywhere!

a reply to: Bluesma

well it's the epitome of freedom to not have to give the neighborhood mafioso a part of your lunch money everyday. so it isn't as easy of an ethical choice to just chalk it up to greed, pride or insecurity. it's just the nature of a human being to want to be free to make choices without having ten thousand tax code laws to wade thru