Why Does Atheism and Left-Wing Politics Usually Go Together?

[Creed of Heresy]

Yeah, no, I've seen what happens when private companies take over for things like, say, the justice system. It doesn't end well. The Luzerne County private juvenile detention center comes to mind...

Money should not replace voting, PERIOD, end of discussion. The balance of power would be so uneven in such a world that I should not have to describe how or why. You think corporate abuses are bad NOW? HAH!!

[Tiberius]

The justice system (i.e. police / courts) and national security (i.e. military, defence) are the only things governments should have a "monopoly" on, IMO.

[Darth]

Eh, what if both parties voluntarily agree to be seen by a different court? Monopoly on national defence, one provider among many (provided the others are voluntary) in terms of courts?

[Minimalist]

Apparently the OP doesn't know that jesus is a fucking republicunt.

[cratehorus]

Show me that communism doesn't punish success and reward laziness.

I can't?.......... communism was never reached

Show me that communism doesn't always result in a corrupt state that has total control over its citizens.

communism has never resulted in anything?.............. because it was never reached

Show me any government that has total control over its economy and doesn't drive it into the ground.

I can't?............. because no government has ever had TOTAL control over it's economy

[Darkstar]

Show me that communism doesn't punish success and reward laziness.

I can't?.......... communism was never reached

Show me that communism doesn't always result in a corrupt state that has total control over its citizens.

communism has never resulted in anything?.............. because it was never reached

True story: My history professor impersonated Karl Marx to explain commumism to us and to debate its merits. He used the same argument that you are using to discredit Soviet Russia as a 'true' communist state. 'Marx' said that humans would work hard without additional monetary incentives because we were not homo sapien (thinking man), but homo faber (making man). He argued that it was human nature to make things and that people would be motivated by just that.

However, I would call into question the validity of that assumption. In socialism it is, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Communism is a more extreme version of this. The only thing that would motivate someone to work hard would be the nature of 'homo faber', or general goodwill. Hard work is not rewarded, and laziness is not punished. If the government has total control over the means of production, it has near-total control over the economy. In true communism, however, the government is supposed to just fade away. Not sure how that would work...

[TaraJo]

True story: My history professor impersonated Karl Marx to explain commumism to us and to debate its merits. He used the same argument that you are using to discredit Soviet Russia as a 'true' communist state. 'Marx' said that humans would work hard without additional monetary incentives because we were not homo sapien (thinking man), but homo faber (making man). He argued that it was human nature to make things and that people would be motivated by just that.

However, I would call into question the validity of that assumption. In socialism it is, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Communism is a more extreme version of this. The only thing that would motivate someone to work hard would be the nature of 'homo faber', or general goodwill. Hard work is not rewarded, and laziness is not punished. If the government has total control over the means of production, it has near-total control over the economy. In true communism, however, the government is supposed to just fade away. Not sure how that would work...

Yeah, that's kinda how it's supposed to go with Marx's communism. Faux News and the rest of the Republicans like to mix Marx with Stalin, but the USSR wasn't what Marx had in mind at all. Read Animal Farm if you want to get a better understanding of the differences between the noble (even if incorrect) ideas that inspired communism and the horribly corrupt monster it turned into.

Also, our current system doesn't work for the same reason communism doesn't work: people don't have any incentive to work hard. If you're born into money, you're set for life, even if you're lazy and stupid; look at Paris Hilton for the perfect example. And the people lower on the economic bracket feel the opposite happening: they know that no matter how hard they work, they won't be able to get ahead. Rich people don't have to work because their set anyway and poor or middle-class people don't want to work because they won't get ahead even if they do. Change the system so the rich people have to work to stay on top and the poor people can get ahead if they work hard and you'll see a huge change in our economy.

I think a lot of people at the very top, if not all the people at the top of their fields, they'll be more than willing to work without additional incentive. To a lot of them, they love their work and would do it for free. The problem with communism is that nobody would do the lower jobs. Nobody has a love for being a garbage collector or fast food worker or doing laundry. We need incentive for the menial grunt jobs or they won't get done.

[Minimalist]

In true communism, however, the government is supposed to just fade away. Not sure how that would work...

About as well as capitalism if left to its own devices.

Anyone who thinks any "ism" contains all the answers is simply fooling themselves.

[Tiberius]

Show me that communism doesn't punish success and reward laziness.

I can't?.......... communism was never reached

That's irrelevant. I'm not asking you to show me an example of a communist state. I'm asking you to show me (i.e present an argument) that communism doesn't punish success and reward laziness. In my view, communism does this. In a capitalist society, a persons idea can reward them with money if they work hard to turn it into a viable product. In communism, private enterprise is illegal, meaning any good ideas a person has effectively belongs to the state. They have no benefits that the rest of the workforce have. Laziness is rewarded because the system can't bear to see anyone destitute, so the lazy get paid for sitting on their ass.

communism has never resulted in anything?.............. because it was never reached

This is a typical argument of communists. It's quite simply an avoidance of the truth...that wherever communism has been attempted, it has failed.

I can't?............. because no government has ever had TOTAL control over it's economy

Ever heard of a place called North Korea?

[jonb]

I think the right left labels are not only erroneous, but actually get in the way of thinking about, and maybe making improvements to society. To make a sweeping generalisation the right tend not to trust politicians, and put their faith in competing companies, the left don't trust corporations, but put their trust in the politicians. Since most politicians are financed by the corporations or at-least have to have close ties to those companies, the question has to be asked is there any practical difference? Essentially the argument is even on the extremes Bolshevik politicians should have the upper hand and direct the economy, or Right the companies should be unfettered from the dictates of government. For me politicians and corporations use their power to rig the economy to favour their own ends, and as such work against me. Corporations in practice use their size to stifle small business, Communists traditionally think that the only way of removing central power is to go through a period of central control, which is also madness. To my mind to make right left arguments misses the issues. and makes presumptions which go unchallenged because of the labels. In any pyramid structure the people at the top actually do not have any power. This might seem like a silly statement, but I will justify it. Imagine a politician on right or left who changes his convictions, if he acts on his new principals the structure that got him into power will quickly remove him. To be at the top of the pyramid you need a supporting structure, damage that structure you will no longer be at the top to keep power your first duty is to reward the structure that put you in place which leaves very little time to do much else. For me the people who can change a system are those who are least constricted by it. As such my politics is of an up down axis, not a left right one.