why you're wrong about communism...

The point is that the "no one cares about material wealth. We have different objectives" stuff was such bullshit that they couldn't even write the series that way. Hell the black chick in first contact rightfully called Picard out on that being bullshit.

 

I disagree with that premise. People want to be rewarded commensurate with their skill and talent. Any easy way to illustrate the inherent nonsense of communism or any other type of collectivism is to imagine its application to professional sports: An NBA where Tony Parker and Luke Ridnour are treated as equals.

 

Which was an obvious nod to folks like you who see it that way. I don't. I think you are missing the forest for the trees. You are still looking at the world through the prism of our society.

 

Is there not a player's union with a negotiated minimum? And that minimum is scaled to time in the league (not directly performance)? I think the perception of Marx as being one and the same as Stalin is a common mistake. I would argue that the rise of players' unions is very much an example of community, communal, and communist thinking. Every player within the union is equal. They are classless. They then agree to a system of pay that they all find fair: time in the league, and demand for the individual's skill set. But it isn't solely the market dictating it. It is the players themselves who play a large role. I'm not saying it is communist, I am saying it has some of the basic ideas there. Hell, some call unions of any sort communist.

 

Picarda family has owned a vineyard with a huge house and properly for 8 generations. In a communist or non free market society how the hell does that happen? With estate taxes you couldn't even do that today. In the last episode data has a live in butler and lives in a huge house in London. No one cares about wealth, but somehow the people leading the society sure seem to live a hell of a lot better than everyone else . Picard's cabin on the enterprise is like 1500 square feet. The unenlisted men are living 4 to a room. The top performers will get the rewards in any society.

 

Stalin wasn't communism. It was fascism with horrible crimes against humanity in the name of educating the population toward the state of communism.

The issue with communism is that it kills and devalues individualism, which is its fatal flaw.

 

I'd also like to know at what income you will start turning down raises. I know an awful lot of people in your field working for non profits or the govt and none of them are working for say teachers wages. Or at least not the top people.

 

Look at Kobe's paycheck. Then look at Arnette Moultrie's. Tell me how equal they are. Negotiated floors don't create equality. They create a floor.

 

1. Having some sort of minimum for the lower level players is not communism. There's plenty of income inequality within the league.
2. It's much easier to discuss idealistic ideas like 'sharing the wealth' when you're only sharing the wealth with a relatively small group of people who are all making more money than 99% of the richest country in the World.

 

I've yet to have met a single "I don't care about money" person that will turn down a raise because it's too much money. It's also rather easy to talk like that when you are single and 26 and no one else relies on your ability to make a decent living.

 

Assloads of people want to be paid massively more than any of their skill, talent or effort would ever be worth and they have hordes of others helping them get it to feel better about themselves or collect votes.

Ignoring differences in ability and abject worthlessness makes communism sound ok.

 

I'll let you know. Right now I am sucking on the rich man's teat contributing nothing to society, as I only teach as an adjunct and do odd jobs to make rent.

 

By definition, a floor constrains one side of possible gaps.

 

No it doesn't. It sets a nominal value, which means exactly [penis].

 

So you have no problem with minimum wage hikes? I mean, apparently they mean [penis].

 

People are not worth dollar signs, imo.

 

Nominal values are meaningless. Why should I care if they're hiked? It's pandering and takes some limited time to make everything more expensive. Those it hurts most are fixed income type retirees. The fantasy benefit isn't worth hurting those folks.

Was this supposed to help your point that arbitrary minimum values mean something?

 

What does your opinion matter? The utopia you pine for doesn't need opinions, just harmonious people happy with the world.

 

So money does matter then?

 

I don't. Only negative effect is on inflation historically. No positive effect either as I proved rather perfectly. But if it makes the plebs happy go for it.