[uoaei]

My concern is also the social dynamics that "TC or bust" people engender around them. There is an obvious mentality that goes along with that approach, and more often than not this turns what should be a collective, holistic approach to social well-being into a quasi-zero-sum game where everyone is just trying to extract value from everyone else.

It is deleterious to community per se. Islands of nuclear families does not a community make.

It's true there are people who straddle both worlds -- those who use TC to improve and embolden their community. But I would bet a lot of money that it's mostly people who spend frivolously and selfishly so that their kids go to good schools and have good opportunities, but that others' kids don't get access to the same kinds of on-ramps to success.

[Our_Benefactors]

> But I would bet a lot of money that it's mostly people who spend frivolously and selfishly so that their kids go to good schools and have good opportunities, but that others' kids don't get access to the same kinds of on-ramps to success.

Getting a higher TC does not take opportunities away from other people. What kind of communist thought is this? Line employees at these companies aren’t the ones appealed to in “The Gospel of Wealth”.

[uoaei]

Getting a higher TC does not take opportunities away from other people. Spending those earnings on things that do not improve the commonwealth is what is being discussed in this thread.

It really is remarkable how, every time this subject comes up, reactionaries can swing only at straw men. It demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the arguments of their supposed opponents, which makes them seem naive at best.

In fact, seeing opposition where there is room for discussion is part and parcel of the same phenomenon of self-centeredness that I discuss above.

[Our_Benefactors]

Convenient excuse to claim your opponent doesn’t understand your argument. I do - you are advocating against people being able to spend as they see fit, by placing the “commonwealth” above the individual. It’s communism.

[uoaei]

Communism is when the threat of violence is used to enforce such a rule. I see it as a culture problem but do not wish to use violence to correct it. I think your boogeyman radar is off.

[Our_Benefactors]

I think you’re falling right into the classic “that’s not real communism” no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

[uoaei]

There are many kinds of communism, but someone asking others "please consider spending your privately-held money on slightly different private property and services" doesn't meet any definitions that I know of.

Communism as a political organizational principle requires by definition the use of force (via government) to enforce its dicta. Where did I advocate using force? Where did I mention or even imply the involvement of a government at all?

The word you may be thinking of is collectivism, as a counterpart to individualism, the axis of which obviously aligns much closer with the discussion we've been having above than anything on the capitalism/communism axis. But "collectivism" isn't a 20th century dog-whistle boogeyman so I can see why it dodged your reactionary tendencies.

[drc500free]

I think you're falling right into the classic "any kind of government or shared services is communism" fallacy.