"The unwashed masses"!
I haven't seen that term in years. In fact I know people that are older than me:) that haven't heard the term.
And yes, we are all in this together.

"You are responsible to others, because if it weren't for them you would be nothing. You would die at birth, and have no skills, no value, no virtue. You owe society your 'sacrifice' because society provided everything that allowed you to become who you are."

You need to apply limits to that argument if you do not want it to apply to the extreme end of communism. Perhaps we are responsible to others . . . "but to what point", my entire life? What you describe can easily be construed as enslavement without the freedoms of self determination.

Personally, I think being productive and adding value to society already repays whatever inherent debt we have . . . and in full.

If there are practices that are "legally" destructive to society . . . then that's the government's failing in not installing proper regulations.

Well, since both are personal philosophies, rather than legislation or enforceable laws, you set your own limits, and you dictate your own behavior.

The problem with philosophy is that circumstances are varied and there is no such thing as a one-size-fits all rule for every circumstance in every situation.

The Chinese in Zen Buddhism and in Taoism have this idea of relationships between things giving them meaning.

In english, our nouns are concrete, a teacher, a student, a lawyer. That word sums up what a person is.

But in Taoism and Zen Buddhism, things are only made what they are by their relationship to other things. It's what's in between that's important. A teacher with no pupils is not a teacher. A student who refuses to learn is not a student.

From Rand's point of view, one only should give of ones self to other for their virtue, and your own self-interest. But it is in your rational self interest to give love unconditionally to others.

Both the collectivist views of say, Ghandi, and the "rational self-interest" of Ayn Rand are compatible, they are both different lenses for viewing the same world in which the same unspeakable and contextually variable rules of cause and effect will always apply.

While lenses are viewing the same world, the conclusions that one makes while looking through the distortions of that lens vary, and may be they themselves distorted.

The Socialist Hellhole known as "Venezuela" has the world's highest happiness index.

They all have free education, free health care, free housing.

It must suck to live there.

I find myself agreeing with most of the things you write wirehedd, but this just isn't one of them. =)

"From each according to his ability and to each according to his need"
-I so very very much detest that sentiment . . . I see it as a parasitic statement and nothing more.

More than anything, I really just detest communist philosophy/ideology as it promotes a system of enslavement to "your fellow man" all in the name of the "common good" . . . which leaves little to no room for the personal freedom of self determination.

I agree though that the answer probably lies somewhere in balance between unfettered capitalism and socialism . . . but that's leaving communism completely out of the picture.

@wirehedd - I suggest that you read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal then maybe that you will get a different perspective out of life. I have lived in two countries, the first the UK I was born there and it is a socialist country. The second is the US where it has now become capitalist/socialist I choose the US over my own country.

When government as in the UK steals 80% of your wages for government programs that you do not use half of them I have a problem with that. Work that out that means that you are working nine and a half months out of the year for the government as opposed to six months here in the US. But dont you worry, unless we digress away from this CHANGE, and get America back on track were people once prospered.

The America that I talk about is the old America, the America where true freedom and liberty was established. The America where no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. Where respect for the individuals rights are the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud is banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. It is every person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and we should welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The America where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

@Lucid and @critic

I can understand the dislike of communism as I personally believe that a socialism tempered capitalist based economy is the most successful model.

My feelings of "to each according to his need" is just that; "need" in which I do not include a six of Budweiser and a pack of Marlboros but basic healthcare, a roof and food. There should be no such thing as a homeless person unless that person truly WANTS to be homeless. The idea of allowing people to die on the streets like stray dogs is repulsive to me when there is absolutely no need or excuse for it.

The idea of being enslaved by others is the wrong approach to me. I prefer to see it as an opportunity to help those who are our fellow humans and helping another person achieve is not slavery but a gift to be the better and bigger person and the chance to allow some of the good fortune we have enjoyed to be enjoyed by another who may never have that chance simply because they are unable in some way beyond their control.

The fact there are people who NEED assistance by no fault of their own is the basis for my beliefs. The fact that there are a lot of families out there who are suffering and doing without basic human dignity due to the greed of others through the use of capitalistic "freedom" is what I see as unethical.

As a person who has been in well paying and successful jobs and who is now partially disabled (due to a drunk driver) I have seen both sides of the equation and know that the idea of profit is only acceptable so long as it is not at the expense of another human beings basic needs. To steal the food out of a child's mouth for the sake of profit is disgusting no matter how it is justified and that is where I draw the difference.

When I was earning $165k a year I had no issue at all with paying a little more than somebody who makes less due to the fact that I would never begrudge paying my share to help my fellow humans. The idea that some people would not be willing to pay a little extra when they themselves are already leaps and bounds ahead of others makes no sense to me at all other than from a perspective of greed. I'm not a greedy person I guess.

Capitalism is great as long as it is tempered with honesty, integrity, compassion and morality. These are also the same criteria that should be assigned to socialist programs which provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

I may not have been clear on these ideas before but this is how I feel.

"I prefer to see it as an opportunity to help"
-That's a common position that turns a lot of people off when they realize it's not an "opportunity" when it's mandated and required of them to help under a communist society.

I'm basically of the opinion that you reap what you sow, and if you make bad decisions . . . then you pay the cost of those decisions.

With the exception of the mentally disabled, I haven't met a single homeless person that wasn't where they were due to their own actions . . . and I met quite a few when I lived in San Francisco. Many of which actually preferred the freedom they found in being unemployed and homeless, having no responsibilities to account for (other than finding food).

When it comes down to it, I really think it is simply not a justifiable thing to penalize those that make good decisions in order to provide for those that make bad decisions.

In regards to medicine though, I would be in favor of a tax-funded system that we all pay into and that we all benefit from. This idea actually appeals to me as we would be getting what we pay for (as opposed to the way it is now).

In regards to providing housing and food for the people that really want to move up from rock bottom, then I would say "profitable" government programs that offer accommodations and a little pay in exchange for actual work (FDR style) might be in order to help get the unemployable on their feet, but not without a trade for labor and certainly not for free. I just don't see any dignity in receiving charity or anything for free . . . anything that you didn't "earn".

I appreciate though that your point of view is rooted in altruistic motives. I just personally think that communism is overly idealistic and misguided.

I agree.

I really enjoyed "Anthem."