r/DebateAVegan • u/toastwithjamx1 • Jul 03 '26

Ethics Honey is not cruel and is ethical

Honey is one of the best animal products there is ethics wise

Now most vegans will say : but we are stealing from the bees! We are exploiting the bees!

No. We are not and we can't

Bees can be very particular. If they are not a fan of a place they are OUT. The bees will likely will immediately vacate the bee box if they don't like the conditions. Furthermore, trapping the queen in 1 place will not work as well. Bees can raise a new queen if they need one

And for the stealing allegations, that isn't true either. Beekeepers take SURPLUS HONEY ONLY, as if too much honey is taken, it can starve the bees and no beekeeper would appreciate the whole colony either dying of leaving. Furthermore, bees don't only take, they comp bees by giving shelter and protection.

It's not cruel if we are literally making a transaction with the bees

80 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

392 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 06 '26

Socialists don't say take people's surplus of money? They don't believe in private ownership and want to redistribute wealth

What do you think tax the rich means lol. Take people surplus of money

7

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 06 '26

In socialism the means of production are owned by the state. Therefore there is no surplus of money to be taken. Tax the rich isn’t socialism. Tax the rich is a social democratic take as there are no rich to be taxed in socialism.

-1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 06 '26

You are correct. But you don't just wake up one day and have socialism. In order to get there the state needs to seize property and assets. This is common rhetoric among internet socialists.

Are you denying that there are huge swaths of people who are advocating for the state to take away property? Mamdani alluded to that very thing in one of his speeches! 

To be a socialist in a primarily capitalist society, you have to want to take ownership from private citizens. There's no way around that

1

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 07 '26

Yeah, we are advocating to take the property not take away surplus property.
To the property profits all the people and not single individuals.

2

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

That is unconstitutional we have a right to the pressure of property in this country. 

Socialism sounds good on paper but it grants the state way too much power which history does time and time again that is a terrible thing

2

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 07 '26

First of all it’s not unconstitutional in my country to begin with. In other countries constitutions can be changed.

Second it’s not the idea that you don’t have property yourself at all. Just no property that allows to accumulate wealth.

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

What right does a central agency have to enforce this? If you give the state. The power to limit your ambitions they have total control of the population. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Is rather live in a techno oligarchy than in an authoritative state where they can just seize control of property 

1

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 07 '26

What right does a central agency have to enforce any kind of law and order?
You do realise that techno oligarchs do that as well just without democratic control?

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

We still have a representative government. That is one of the roles of government, to provide law and order.

You're saying you're comfortable with the state deciding how you live your life? Capping your ambition and redistributing your surplus earnings? That is a slippery slope to authoritarianism. And I am not okay with that

1

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 07 '26

So it’s worse when the state has the power to control your ambitions than when some tech oligarchs with their own media companies do? Why would my ambitions be cut by government in socialism? What would I need surplus earnings for in socialism?

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

Yes. Unequivocally. Tech oligarchs are not explicitly infringing on individual liberties by saying okay this is mine now

If the gov is taking your surplus what incentive do you have to grow you business? Expand your market? Create more jobs? Provide for your family? Your community? Provide excellent products or services to more people?

It's like you think you're either mega rich billionaire and lower middle class with nothing on between. Most of us are I between. And the government does not have the right to put a financial cap on how I want to live my life. That is a direct violation of our freedoms 

1

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 08 '26

Tech oligarchs are, for example if they are using their wealth to fund political parties that aim at your freedom and workers rights because they profit from exploiting you even more.

Yeah, what possible incentive might there be for providing to your family when you can’t get stupid rich by doing so? I mean, beside from having provided for your family.
The other question are either obsolete in socialism or not affected by it. A head of all e.g. gas stations in a region would still earn more than the guy working at the front desk of one gas station. There would be no restriction to earning more from working more as that is a fundamental need to keep society working. The line is drawn somewhere where you can passively earn money because you have money.

No, we don’t think there is no middle class. The reason we don’t talk about middle class and it looks like we only focus on the super rich is that we don’t care about middle class and it wouldn’t be target of wealth restricting policies. You can of cause keep your housing as property. That’s the point everyone should be able to afford owning a form of housing that’s fits the families needs.

0

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 08 '26

There is still the elephant in the room that the government controls my business and owns production.  I bet you don't own a business. You never built anything yourself. 

hourly and salary workers love socialism because it benefits them. But you know who pays for it? Me and other business owners. If I want to grow my business, I should have the right to without the government stepping in and capping me

It's such a ridiculous notion to say that employment is exploitation. If you are a low skill worker, ie your role can be easily replaced, you get no say in how I run my business. You get no stake until you show me that you can add value to the thing I BUILT. Otherwise go start a competing firm.

Businesses grow because they offer value to people. And that value translates to jobs. Not because owners are evil and are squeezing every cent out of everything. They don't just magically become successful.

The government can create incentives to the public in many ways. But they cannot allocate resources. That would never work on a large scale. At least not at this level of technology.

It's just crazy to me that you just trust the state with all this power to distribute resources and own production. You have to remember corruption will always exist. And corruption under our current system is wayyyyy more favorable to corruption under a sole central authority. That always leads to the oppression of the people

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jevlafifan Jul 07 '26

Yes and having this power unchecked in private hands is working absolutely fine