Don't jump directly into the red scare through a slippery slope fallacy, it's just intellectually dishonest while being the most boring thought-terminating cliché on this type of discussion.

Wanting to live in a better and more just system, even if we can most realistically just work towards an improved version of capitalism, is probably something most of us can agree upon.

I don't think anyone sane is against people having their needs fulfilled so I don't think anyone sane would look at any system we live under and think "yeah, this is it, we found the perfect system".

So instead of deflecting into communism as a gotcha, why don't we behave as adults, and agree that discussing how to find ways to improve our systems of production, distribution of wealth, how we view the less fortunate, how society can be better overall for all of us, is quite fucking important?

Going directly into the pigeon hole of ideology is just lazy and unimaginative. Humanity did unthinkable achievements already, we can always try to do better, don't be lazy and unimaginative...

We probably can agree on lots of things, about inefficiencies in current system and the like, but some elementary things between us are too far apart.

The ideas you identify as solutions, for me are the problems.

You can promote artificial redistribution all you want, but I will want to stop it however I can. If a global redistribution system would be implemented, then all your wealth would go to Africa and Russia, and you will be left with nothing. I'm sure this is not what you want, which in my POV makes you a hipocryte. If you don't agree that your wealth should go to Africa or Russia then we're in the area of choosing who is worthy of getting money and who isn't. And this is not at all different from a rich guy deciding where to put money to. So wealth redistribution from my POV just means that a poor guy wants to be in charge of the money now. But after he'll be in charge, it only means that he'll be the new rich guy. Nothing changes at all.

Pro-redistribution people are always talking about cash flowing from someone else to them. It's always the same story. And this is against what I stand for with all my determination, because I don't like thievery. Especially legal thievery.

You go to absolute loaded language to talk about concepts that should be discussed in a more leveled language. You consider thievery just wealth redistribution but don't consider thievery the products of the exploitation of labour, for example.

Why is it thievery to redistribute wealth from elites who are exploiting societal developments (education, skills training, etc.) so they pay their share back into the society which enabled them to become rich in the first place? Why is it ok that they can exploit a whole society's work for their own personal gain while gaming the system to not pay back to the thing that gave all foundations so they could play their game?

You talk about redistribution in a black-and-white way, no nuance, you go to the extremes such as:

> You can promote artificial redistribution all you want, but I will want to stop it however I can. If a global redistribution system would be implemented, then all your wealth would go to Africa and Russia, and you will be left with nothing.

Which is a strawman, I did not touch on this point whatsoever, I did not talk about "global redistribution", you are the one bringing this up, in an utopic sense, yes, we could talk about it but I'm trying to discuss in realistic terms what could be improvements in enclosed societies (aka: national states) to improve the system.

That's where we fundamentally disagree, you cannot talk in nuanced terms, it's either "communism!" or "you will be poor and give your money to all the poor in the world" instead of a level-headed discussion on the flaws of our current systems, how we could search for solutions to it.

And even worse, you talk about "artifical redistribution" as if the current form is the "natural" one, what is natural about a few people who found ways to exploit the system for personal gain instead of the natural way of living collectively since we all depend on each other for societies to function since time immemorial?

Your view is very conservative, it's unimaginative, it just states that what it currently is is what's natural and supposed to be. Challenge a bit more your thoughts, you are just repeating the same trope over and over...

I'm sorry if I'm not on the same language level as you, I needed to learn it in addition to my native one first. I promise you I'm more eloquent in my native language. ;)

You might have missed the point of my previous message, but it's okay since I don't have trust in my language skills that much to suspect a problem with your reception. I accept it can be a problem with my emission instead.

I use extreme examples as abstract ideas. I try to consider an idea in its extreme first, to assess if it's an idea worth considering. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. I don't use this technique because I'm unable to imagine anything that can be put in between -- I can, but thinking in extremes for me is easier.

I agree that the example of "global wealth redistribution" is extreme. But that was the point: to show that this extreme idea is ridiculous, as an extreme. But if we want to consider this idea in not an extreme way, as a "leveled" idea as you've said it, then my point was that this is NOT different at all from the rich guy example.

If you have a group of people (a state) with some wealth, and you want to choose that wealth stays inside the group, this is not at all different than the rich guy wanting the wealth to stay inside the family. For anyone outside of this group (e.g. from someone in Africa), your group is just another, but a higher level, rich guy. And I think it's very telling that you oppose other rich guys, but you want to stay a part of a rich guy yourself, because this is also how a rich guy behaves: other rich guys want to fight other rich guys too!

I see your arguments as "I want their money", disguised as "help the poor with their money". For me it seems that you don't want to help the poor, because you still want first to choose who is poor, and who isn't. So it's not about helping the poor, it's about choosing who YOU want to help. You choose that the poor in "your family" are more important than the poor outside of it. This is exactly how a rich guy behaves. Also you say that rich people don't have rights to their money, but the question is why YOU want to have the right to decide where their money should go. Because you pay taxes?

And your question, "what is natural about people who want to exploit", then well, this is with humanity from day zero, people with clubs exploited people without clubs, so I guess that would be a definition of the word "natural". It's not to say that "natural" means "a good way to do things", rather "natural" as average, it always been that way, etc.

For some reason you think you're on higher moral standing with your ideas, but I can assure you, I don't see it this way.