reliabilityguy

First book I've ever read start to finish when I was in school. I remember that we've read a chapter a day in class, each one couple lines until the chapter was done.

Yes, taking the whole families in the middle of night and sending them to Siberia to build railroads is exactly the same as American prison, access to attorney, etc.

> Because of internal corruption and external embargoes and a government budget that could fund a global cold war.

The west also funded Cold War, and is not free from corruption.

> Just don't do the above, and you're fine.

How else would you ensure the purity of thought?

I don’t need to see a word believe. Beliefs are not based on rational arguments, and your arguments are irrational, so no need to use specific words, I can infer from between the lines.

> Also, you are strongly implying the USSR taxed the wealthy disproportionately. They did not, so your entire argument is silly.

They absolutely did. The tax was 100% and then camps for the whole family.

My argument is not silly, in fact I did not make any. I asked how exactly we are going to be better off without the rich, and what kind of metrics were used to make the analysis. So far there was no answer.

Saying someone’s argument is silly and then walking off is silly.

Sure. What else is Americas fault? Did the US force Stalin to make gulag?

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

>Yea, I actually believe a bunch of people agreeing with an action has a difference in quality vs one oligarch or king getting to unilaterally decide.

This is a false dichotomy.

> They may end up doing shitty things but the group has buy in from a lot more people than one asshole deciding how we get to live our life.

Well, a group of teachers in a union decided for the whole state that they (the teachers) deserve health insurance more than the rest of the state.

I understand that for some people it's fine because their team wins. I am not one of those, I am for outcomes that benefit the most, and not select few that managed to sway power just because they are teachers.

You have this view, and it’s your right.

I care about outcomes, and I do not give unions any more slack or good will just because they are “troops of people”. They do shitty things too, and the results are bad for everyone involved. So, what’s the difference? There is none.

> This doesn't even make sense. Poverty is a relative term.

It makes perfect sense. Citizens of USSR were poorer than their counterparts in the west, didn’t have access to the same variety of food, cloth, etc.

I do remember all these things from my childhood, and my parents made more money than the average because they worked for the oil and gas industry that paid extra. So, when people are trying to sell me the whole “collectivism” and anti-rich sentiment, I am a bit wary because no one can explain how “this time” is going to be different — it seems none of the activists/advocates actually lived in such systems, so they have no clue. I lived the consequences, and I do not want it for myself or anyone else.

I would say the point of the economy is to ensure that both the rich get what they want, but also to ensure that others are not poor and left behind. This is not the case today, and thus a series of reforms is needed. But it’s doesn’t make a believer for the “let’s abolish the rich” thing.

> I reject your suggestion that I am ignorant how unions operate. I have been a member of a union for many years.

I was a member of a union as well.

> Larger decisions are decided by voting.

After they went through the filter of the leadership, either via the “bargaining committee” or any other form of delegation, selection to which can be based on votes or appointments.

You can Google yourself how teacher unions opposed NYS health care bill, and why they deemed it necessary to justify their position with “protecting the fought for benefits” among other things.

> Unions represent the interest of a large group of people, they arrive at policy through debate and consensus.

Well, in this case, how come preventing access to healthcare to NYS residents is in the interest of the teachers? And, why would teachers think that they are the only ones who deserve good health care?

Unless… the unions have no feedback mechanism to ensure that they operate the way you think they operate, and they do what any other politician does — they want to stay in power I exchange for keeping just enough of the voting base like you more than the next guy. So, in this case, it’s perfectly reasonable for a union leadership to fight this law — it simply a preservation of power thing.

> adjust tax/accounting laws to prevent the accumulation in the first place

Yes, I agree with this one. Some sort of reform on estate and inheritance is long overdue.

This is not the question I asked. I asked how and why would it be better for the rest of us?

For the record, I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea of taxation on the wealthy, but I want to understand why having no rich is better for everyone.

Extraordinary claims, etc

Not only rich people affect outcomes of the elections or legislature, unions do as well.

For example, New York’s Health Act failed because teachers unions opposed it on the grounds of “protecting the hard fought contract benefits”. In other words, union leadership realized that with this bill becoming a law unions would be less needed, so they fought for their interests while disregarding interests of others.

So, unions should go as well?

USSR had no rich and everyone one was poor (except for the party’s apparatus).

So, how would it work here? Why eliminating the rich (whatever is the definition) would achieve a different outcome than that of communist regimes of the past?