Jump to content

Love, Peace, and the War on Afganistan


CommanderJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 world government is what's needed. Unfortunately, that wont happen for quite some time. The EU is a great step foward, and I see it happening in Latin/South America within 100 years. Then Asia half a century after and africa following. If they dont shoot each other up, perhaps another 100 years to form a world gov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I disagree with a one world government because I believe that different cultures need different rules.

Such as these Muslim countries. You don't expect them to want to be a part of any government that isn't religious, and I for one would rather not see a theocracy handed down to be "sensitive" to their needs.

And depending on your religion, there are only going to be 4 one world unifying governments throughout history. We've had 3. The fourth is the anti-christ. So no I'd rather not thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 World government? OH PLEASE!!

I don't think so, the humn race is far too diverse for that, and any one world government would be as obtrusive as possible. It would never work, the people of the US for one would revolt at the thought of such a creature.

As it is the UN is chilling out a bit, because the US citizens are freaking over it's world government wannabe attitude.

No, a world Government is the WORST thing that could happen, we need to push the muslim countries into a Turkish type secular government, and let the other countries in other parts of the world figure out what they really want for themselves.

Oh, and the EU is gonna do a nosedive here rather quickly, it's draconian policies are unpopular and will cause a major uprising when the citizens of the countries involved want to get out. UK being just one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. Sorry Dread, I've been busy responding to $iLk's posts.

quote:

the process of a socialist revolution, it's implementation in the world (specifically the United States), who would do it, why people would do it, how it would stop terrorism

It depends on who you ask.

A Leninist would probably say that the revolution would be an armed revolt by a specific group or groups of revolutionaries representing the interests of the working class, who would replace the current state with a vanguard party-state apparatus that is mainly Democratic Centralist ('freedom of debate combined with unity of action').

A Marxist would probably say that the revolution would be an essentially spontaneous revolt (with the support of revolutionaries) by workers in general across the economy in reaction to the deteriorating conditions of their workplaces etc.

These are just educated guesses since I'm still a bit of a newbie in this area.

How it would stop terrorism is relatively simple. It's the same as how it would stop war. The abolition of private property (which is essentially agreed upon by revolutionary socialists) and the overthrow of sovereign nation-states would make any act of terrorism or war essentially useless, since there would be nothing to gain from it.

For example, the current conflict in the Middle East between the Arabs and the Jews is basically about sovereignty (both groups were relatively cordial before the Balfour Declaration). After a worker's revolution, there would be no Arab or Jewish sovereign states, since there would be no private property for them to defend within national borders. Instead, you have an international working class society where peace is mutually beneficial. Any act of terrorism or war between groups of workers would only result in a general reduction in productivity, which would harm both sides, thus it is useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to understand under what conditions a socialist utopia would arise minus complete altering of human nature and a great leap forward in evolutionary thought.

It is hardly debatable that Socialism as a system cannot compete with Capitalism or any market driven system, because Socialism is not geared towards competition. Competition breeds ingenuity and excels far ahead of the sluggish mindset of Socialism. Socialism, if it could come about would perhaps support itself supposing everyone went along with it (doubtful but still), but it cannot reasonably be denied that it would slow us down technologically.

I don't see what's so appealing about it, other than the fact that you'd no longer have the ability to be jealous of those who succeed beyond what you think is right.

I seriously can't understand the Socialist obsession with class and competition. It isn't fair that those who could excel in life be forced to live under the same level as someone who is 100% trailer park trash and beats there wife every night.

But then again, it's a mystery as to why it appeals to anyone other than bleeding heart liberals who want EVERYONE to be happy as if it were a right (which wouldn't be guaranteed under a socialist system as those who COULD excel would be unhappy). It's pretty much a fact, that people who FEEL instead of THINK vote towards liberal candidates. The people who actually think realize that this system will not work.

Those who feel see their idealism as reality. That's why the sudden slap in the face of the liberal movement by the events of 9/11 has caused many of them to squirm because they are trying to deal with the situation in the only way they deal with any situation - whining about everything that their country does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to break it down simple. Menchise, you yourself have stated that humans have been conditioned throughout history to act, think, a certain way. Humans have become competition oriented over thousands of years.

What exactly do you think is going to happen if you throw an ideology that is exactly the opposite of what they live under towards them in a short period of time?

The exact same thing that happens to your transmission when you throw it in REVERSE from 5th Gear.

Just as a vehicle can't handle a rapid change opposite of the way it's headed, society cannot handle it either.

Every one of your examples that shows how humans worked together at one point in time took place 300 to 500 years ago.

Are you suggesting that we revert back to that period in the space of a view years, neglecting the evolution in thought that has happened since then.

To put it mildly, Socialism will never work in our lifetimes, or our children's. For that matter our great grandchildren's. Unless you take the immoral steps already begun in America of indoctrinating our youth in schools.

Take Hitler's advice; all you need is one generation to be brainwashed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One world government doesnt mean 1 culture. If anything, the US has PROVEN that people from vastly different cultures can live together.

Gov. handle resources and the economy and infrastructure, not the social aspects. It will happen eventually.

You guys are reacting the same way a medieval european man would if you told him that one day, hundreds of years from that day, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, etc would join into a Union. To him, thats preposterous and impossible. Yet its happening now. Things change, and Europe has begun a trend that the rest will follow.

And yes, I am from the future, resistance is futile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your idea, but why exactly would anyone work without power/land/ownership to aspire to? I see the merits of your system, but it assumes that every human being is somehow intrinsicly good, and will work for a greater good/for society. If I work all day as a janitor, i'd expect to get something significant from it while someone else is working in some cushy managerial job, and i'd want something to show for it, as would almost everyone in the world. After all, if i'm going to be doing hard manual labor all day every day for a month, i expect to have a little bit more money than a Tech Support rep answering phones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for me to be the target...

I think that One World Government would be a good idea. It would cause us to think of ourselves as HUMANS instead of black, white, American, Chinese, etc, and we would be able to work for the advancement of our society as a whole, instead of working against fellow humans in other countries. Why do you think in most sci-fi/space movies, you don't hear about COUNTRIES on planets, you hear about planets. I do however, admit the following, before everyone decides to bash the one world government idea....

1. There's no way that it would work at present time without disasterous consequences.

2. In order for it to work, at least 80-90% of the world's population would have to support the idea, and be able to put aside the majority of their own personal traditions/culture in order for the greater good of the human civilization.

3. In addition, since #2 is highly unlikely, the only way I can possible see it done is if we are invaded by aliens from another planet Independence Day Movie...remember, or the human race is faced with extinction for some other reason (global warming, etc)

And i'm dead serious. There's no way that a one world government would ever work unless the human race faced extinction, then one would work really fast. If we hear the Earth is going to explode in 5 years, every country in the world is going to work together to get tech. to get the hell out of here and to a different planet and/or space. So, all of you people wanting to find aliens.....tell them in invade us. That'd make us get a One World Gov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

It is hardly debatable that Socialism as a system cannot compete with Capitalism or any market driven system, because Socialism is not geared towards competition.

Capitalism may have a higher productive output, but it's also inherently unstable. Apart from its frequent crises in overproduction and underconsumption, there is also the issue of a disgruntled workforce, whose demands for a better life where they receive the value of their labour instead of making someone else rich are being oppressed by the state when they're not being blinded by nationalist or neoliberal rhetoric.

quote:

Competition breeds ingenuity and excels far ahead of the sluggish mindset of Socialism. Socialism, if it could come about would perhaps support itself supposing everyone went along with it (doubtful but still), but it cannot reasonably be denied that it would slow us down technologically.

It can be reasonably denied. Technological advancement comes from knowledge, not competition. Competition is just one way of motivating inventors to invent faster. Capitalism suffers in that a minority of the working class have the knowledge or access to the knowledge. One of the features of socialism is free education; everyone has access to knowledge, thus socialism has a significant advantage in that area.

I've heard and read a lot of opinions about how competition improves technological advancement, but all I can see is a contradiction. Competition motivates inventors to compete with other inventors for profit, which theoretically speeds up and improves advancement. In practice, however, competition is actually harmful to advancement, because it divides knowledge. Instead of the sum of knowledge inventing something of great value, you have competing inventions of lesser value.

One ironic example of how a non-market (not necessarily socialist) economy has outdone a market economy in advancement is Cuba's highly successful pharmaceutical industry, where drugs such as PPG (the world's top anti-cholesterol medication) were developed.

quote:

I don't see what's so appealing about it, other than the fact that you'd no longer have the ability to be jealous of those who succeed beyond what you think is right.

The appeal is that labour value goes to the people who perform the labour, instead of being extracted by a shareholder as profit. Other appeals include:

1. Job security.

2. Full employment.

3. Basic needs are guaranteed.

4. Less crime.

5. Free education.

6. Free health care.

7. No poverty.

8. No war.

Shall I continue?

quote:

I seriously can't understand the Socialist obsession with class and competition.

I seriously can't understand the Capitalist obsession with profit and competition.

quote:

It isn't fair that those who could excel in life be forced to live under the same level as someone who is 100% trailer park trash and beats there wife every night.

Now who's using rhetoric?

quote:

It's pretty much a fact, that people who FEEL instead of THINK vote towards liberal candidates.

A fact, eh? Prove it. While you're at it, try proving to me that conservatives don't feel instead of think when they vote.

quote:

Those who feel see their idealism as reality. That's why the sudden slap in the face of the liberal movement by the events of 9/11 has caused many of them to squirm because they are trying to deal with the situation in the only way they deal with any situation - whining about everything that their country does.

I'm not whining now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What exactly do you think is going to happen if you throw an ideology that is exactly the opposite of what they live under towards them in a short period of time?

Socialism is not the exact opposite of what people live under. It's a progression of what's been happening throughout the history of class struggle (Despotism to Feudalism to Capitalism to Communism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between socialism and capitalism is social responsability. Capitalism has none, and basically follows the logic of biggest wins. Socialism understand the fact that people do not, naturally, start on an equal playing field. If I am the son of a rich man, I have resources that someone born on the street does not. You can say what you will about survival of the fittest, and the self made man... these are not bad ideas, but they fail to account for the reality of complete poverty which none of us, who sit around playing BCM on our high end computers can really claim to understand.

Socialism is deeply flawed as a potential system, in that it fails to account for the fact that many people wont work if they don't absolutly have to. It does however adress the fact that a fat man should give up his ham sandwich to save the life of a starving man. This is precisely the sense of responsability capitalism lacks. And while yes, responsability lies with the individual, just as we cannot assume everyone will work out of responsability, we also cannot assume people will share.

The basic rewards for work idea doesn't really hold up either. As somone said above, they'd like to be compensated if they were stuck doing manual labour, rather than doing a easy manegerial job. The fact is that the manegerial jobs pay more. I've worked jobs where I literally move a tone of goods in a day, all the while sucking in dust and crap, all for min wage. I know peole that get paid heaps to sit on their asses and do a half assed job behind a desk in a university office. That is capitalism.

Capitalism does have its good sides. It does spur people to personal acheivment... however it is fundamentally incouraging selfishness. Socialism/communism, while would result in a lot lazy people doing nothing, the people who would excel would be the responsible, giving individuals, and any society rewards excellence in someway.

Capitalism represents a complete lack of social morality. It is a modern neanderathal king of the hill. It is also founded on on a logistically unstable premis: capitalism places the impetus on constant growth, more profit. Infinit growth in a world with finit resources. Capitalism is doomed to collaspe.

Socialism, in its intent at least, is grounded on more honorable moral grounds. Capitalism has no intent other than greed and hunger.

The fact is, nither work. Capitalism causes an every increasing gap between rich and poor, socialism does cause laziness.

A compromise is nescessary. One that takes into accound the basness of human nature, as well as aspires to higher morality and dignity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're Canadian aren't you? no offense meant, it is just something that I expect to hear from the great white North.

Now let's go over these 1 at a time, shall we?

quote:

The difference between socialism and capitalism is social responsability. Capitalism has none, and basically follows the logic of biggest wins.

Social responsibility in a capitalist system is up to the individual, which is where it should be. Socialism Forces you to be socially responsible at the point of a gun. The US is the MOST giving country in the world, where does the red cross get most of it's funding? Private donations from the US, where does the United Way get ALL of it's funding, private donations from the US. When did you ever hear of China or the USSR coming to the aid of victims of natural disasters? NEVER!!! But we always helped when they did.

quote:

Socialism understand the fact that people do not, naturally, start on an equal playing field. If I am the son of a rich man, I have resources that someone born on the street does not. You can say what you will about survival of the fittest, and the self made man... these are not bad ideas, but they fail to account for the reality of complete poverty which none of us, who sit around playing BCM on our high end computers can really claim to understand.


I can understand, when I was a child, we WERE POOR!! And I mean poor, my mother literally had to go through clothes pockets looking for loose change to feed my sister and myself. If it weren't for this wonderful capitalistic system, EVERYONE would be in the SAME position. My mother got an education and got ahead, by the time I was 10, we owned a house, had 2 cars, great food, our own rooms, bicycles, EVERYTHING, all because you are what you can make of yourself in a capitalist system.

quote:

Socialism is deeply flawed as a potential system, in that it fails to account for the fact that many people wont work if they don't absolutly have to.

You have this one right.

quote:

It does however adress the fact that a fat man should give up his ham sandwich to save the life of a starving man.

And who says? YOU?!! If the man is starving, he has either not gotten to a food kitchen, which there are plenty, or he has not been seeking the help that he needs. NO ONE starves in the United States, unless they choose to. There is plenty of help out there, and MOST of it is private, with no government subsidies whatsoever, and don't need it. Again, the most giving people in the world are in the US, why is that? Our capitalist system at work, that's why.

quote:

This is precisely the sense of responsability capitalism lacks. And while yes, responsability lies with the individual, just as we cannot assume everyone will work out of responsability, we also cannot assume people will share.


And so what, if I have barely enough money to live on, why should I be FORCED to give to those that are "less fortunate" then myself?

Answer, I shouldn't, but this country again is the MOST giving country in the world, and it is ALL because of our capitalist system.

quote:

The basic rewards for work idea doesn't really hold up either. As somone said above, they'd like to be compensated if they were stuck doing manual labour, rather than doing a easy manegerial job. The fact is that the manegerial jobs pay more. I've worked jobs where I literally move a tone of goods in a day, all the while sucking in dust and crap, all for min wage. I know peole that get paid heaps to sit on their asses and do a half assed job behind a desk in a university office.

ANY man can do manual labor, I can train a Monkey to load a truck, I can teach a monkey how to empty garbage. But I cannot teach a monkey how to run a business, or how to do accounting, or design an aircraft. Those type of jobs take SKILL, and SKILL is rewarded with higher pay. The more technical the job, the more the pay. The more responsibility a job has, the more pay. That is the way it works, and that is the way it should work. I am not going to pay a monkey the same amount I am going to pay the CEO, that's just PLAIN ridiculous.

quote:

That is capitalism.

Capitalism does have its good sides. It does spur people to personal acheivment... however it is fundamentally incouraging selfishness.

Give me a break, AGAIN, we are the MOST giving people on the planet, why, because we are the most successful capitalist country in the world, if it weren't for us, half the people that suffer from natural disasters would die of sickness and starvation. AND MOST OF THAT HELP is through PRIVATE organizations with NO ties to the government!!

quote:

Socialism/communism, while would result in a lot lazy people doing nothing, the people who would excel would be the responsible, giving individuals, and any society rewards excellence in someway.

Socialism rewards NOTHING, whether you are the hard worker or the lazy worker, you get the same thing, therefore the hard worker will see that and therefore work less hard, and then EVERYONE suffers!!

quote:

Capitalism represents a complete lack of social morality. It is a modern neanderathal king of the hill. It is also founded on on a logistically unstable premis: capitalism places the impetus on constant growth, more profit. Infinit growth in a world with finit resources. Capitalism is doomed to collaspe.


That whole statement is the biggest load of BS that I have ever seen, if we are running out of a resource, call it oil as an example, even though we have over 250 years worth at this point just in discovered reserves. but say we are running out, a capitalist society will find a solution 10-20 times faster then a socialist society would, and there will ALWAYS be a solution found, because that is how a company makes money, and the best solution will make the most money!!

Again, that whole statement is BS!!

quote:

Socialism, in its intent at least, is grounded on more honorable moral grounds.

And who told you this? the only way that socialism could possibly work would be at the point of a gun, see the USSR and China, this is HONORABLE MORAL GROUNDS?

quote:

Capitalism has no intent other than greed and hunger.


Again, who told you this, this is BS. Capitalism allows ANYONE and I mean ANYONE to become rich, no matter your race creed or color, If you put your nose to the grindstone and work for it, the rewards are yours to be had...

quote:

The fact is, nither work. Capitalism causes an every increasing gap between rich and poor, socialism does cause laziness.

A compromise is nescessary. One that takes into accound the basness of human nature, as well as aspires to higher morality and dignity.

Again, a statement with no factual historical basis. CAPITALISM works, it has always worked whenever it has been tried, capitalism PULLS EVERYONE out of poverty, it raises EVERYONES standard of living. In this country, if you make less then $20,000 you are considered below the poverty line, where else in the world is this true? NO WHERE!!! That's where.

Socialism accomplishes one thing, it brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator, it basically spreads the pain equally among everyone, and it falls in on itself after less then 50 years, why? because, it gets perverted into a stalinist like regime, and all the power and the money are with a VERY small elite, and EVERYONE else is POOR!!! EVERYONE!!!

Conclusion, Capitalism RAISES ALL boats, Socialism SINKS 99% of the boats.

You have been brainwashe into a dreamworld, if you look at the facts, you will see how wrong you really are.

I don't mean to pick on you, this is your first political thread that you have gotten involved in, but statements like that, well, they really get me in an uproar. Because THEY ARE SO WRONG!!

History is the great teacher, and history tells us that Capitalism works WHEREVER and WHENEVER it is tried. Socialism on the other hand, has destroyed everything Wherever and whenever it has been tried. Please see the Russian Republic, and the old USSR satelite nations They are all ecological DISASTERs!!! Socialism destroyed the environment, why? because the government OWNED EVERYTHING, therefore NO ONE cared!! Private ownership, as in capitalism, brings pride in ownership, I OWN my house, therefore I take pride in the way it looks. If I lived in some government housing, why should I care what it looks like, everyone else lives like that.

Socialism has never worked and will NEVER work, it goes against ALL human nature. It is a system that is built to fail, the foundation is made of quicksand, and sooner or later it ALWAYS sinks.

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main danger to Capitalism in the United States is our government stiffling free enterprise in order to give handouts to people who don't work and punish those who do work by taking their money to give to those who don't.

If Capitalism collapses in the United States, it will be because the concept of free enterprise has been corrupted by the introduction of socialist ideals into the system.

Ideals don't make bread and butter for everyone. As Jaguar said, these ideals will be backed up at the point of a gun.

quote:

Capitalism may have a higher productive output, but it's also inherently unstable. Apart from its frequent crises in overproduction and underconsumption, there is also the issue of a disgruntled workforce, whose demands for a better life where they receive the value of their labour instead of making someone else rich are being oppressed by the state when they're not being blinded by nationalist or neoliberal rhetoric.


I'd like to say that the concept of free trade is not unstable, but is rather... thinking of the right word... I'll say random even though that's not what I'm thinking of. The Market Economy corrects itself by measuring consumption vs production. If people buy less, then less is produced. If people buy more, more is produced. The net worth shifts up and down, but in theory will always level out.

As far as individual businesses, they aren't guaranteed to succeed. THey are more likely to succeed if they have an idea in Hell of what they are doing. If someone who doesn't know anything gets involved, then their business will be unstable. But not the economy as a whole. The only danger to our economy is liberalist and socialist punishments being thrown like wrenches into the machinery.

quote:

It can be reasonably denied. Technological advancement comes from knowledge, not competition. Competition is just one way of motivating inventors to invent faster. Capitalism suffers in that a minority of the working class have the knowledge or access to the knowledge. One of the features of socialism is free education; everyone has access to knowledge, thus socialism has a significant advantage in that area.

I think people will find whatever knowledge they need to succeed in ANY system in little things called BOOKS. Unfortunately the boob tube plays too big a part in most peoples lives.

I'm unsure how this was an effective denial of my point that competition would be slowed under a socialist system as you just said that Capitalism would advance faster.

Without a NEED for technology, Socialism wouldn't work towards it. Capitalism invents technology that isn't needed, but improves on our way of life.

Without incentive, why would anyone be likely to introduce technology into a Socialist economy?

quote:

In practice, however, competition is actually harmful to advancement, because it divides knowledge. Instead of the sum of knowledge inventing something of great value, you have competing inventions of lesser value.


Thus is the nature of competition, to work in different ideas that only one may pan out to be good, while socialism might work on one idea that turns out to be utter crap. People aren't part of a collective, so the knowledge is STILL divided amongst individuals with the CAPACITY to understand. I don't care how many people read the same book, only a set amount will understand it.

quote:

1. Job security.
-At the point of a gun

2. Full employment.
-At the point of a gun

3. Basic needs are guaranteed.
-At the point of a gun

4. Less crime.
-At the point of a gun

5. Free education.
-No such thing. Someones paying

6. Free health care.
-No such thing. Someones paying

7. No poverty.
-At the point of a gun

8. No war.
-Just against your own people.


quote:

Now who's using rhetoric?

Who's avoiding the question?

quote:

A fact, eh? Prove it. While you're at it, try proving to me that conservatives don't feel instead of think when they vote.


There are exceptions either way, and I can't prove what EVERY person thinks. But I could always cite examples of reasons for people voting for certain candidates.

Most older people vote liberal because they are scared of their social security benefits being taken away - even though it won't happen.

Most gays and blacks vote for liberals because they feel disadvantaged.

Most trash (i use the term loosely) vote liberal because they feel like collecting handouts they didn't earn.

Those of any of those categories that vote conservative do so because they actually THINK and realize that empty promises are exactly that.

But I'd be lying if I didn't say that there are conservatives who FEEL their vote away over an issue. But I believe it to be accurate that the amount is FAR LESS than the amount of liberals who FEEL their vote away.

quote:

I'm not whining now.

Not as much as you used to

Seriously I see these people such as the anti-gun Brady foundation screaming about how guns are to blame for 9/11 even though not a single gun was used in the attacks, although had the pilots or some passengers had guns the attacks would have failed.

quote:

Socialism is not the exact opposite of what people live under. It's a progression of what's been happening throughout the history of class struggle (Despotism to Feudalism to Capitalism to Communism).


That's just denying the nature of humanity that impels us to screw each other over.

Communism is a regression back to the time when we were cavemen or indians or eskimoes and sort of had to work together.

Until such time as we face immediate extinction if we don't work together - we won't.

Good post by the way Jag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The theory is false. The market has no self-correcting mechanism. Even when consumption starts to decrease, competition is still proliferating, and production continues to increase as long as Investment continues. Once the level of consumption falls below a certain point where it becomes clear that the economy is stagnating, investor confidence falls, then production. The result is recession. Market theory states that the economy will recover due to the investment of savings that were accumulated during the boom period. The flaw in that theory was discovered by John Maynard Keynes in his analysis of the Great Depression, which is that as consumption decreases, so does the level of savings. The market could not recover by itself in the 30s because there weren't enough savings. The government had to step in to save the economy.


As I recall it was government practices in meddling with the economy (Gold standard, taxes, legislation, banking) that led to a weakened state.

I listened to an interview with a man who was head of some economic agency during the depression (I can't thing of his name off-hand, but he had big ears and glasses and black hair if that helps ), but anyway he realized the error on part of government regulatory agencies in stepping in either too soon or too late, and compounded on the idea of the GDP. Through studies they showed that amount of production is directly proportional to amount consumed.

Basic economic theory goes against producing and producing with no one buying anything.

The idea is that each company must maintain the trust of investors. If a company is not trusted by the people, it's stock lowers. If it is trusted to make SMART business decisions and to turn a profit, stock goes up.

The economy as a whole is dependent on the consumer, not the producer, and not the worker.

Without people purchasing, there is no need for a producer. The economy is weakened when no one purchases. Therefore, investors, producers, and workers, are dependent upon consumers. If no one is buying anything, the market adjusts by lowering prices, offering specials, whatever in order to balance out Variable Cost and actual Profit. If the companies show a loss, they don't continue using investor money along the same losing trend, they try different methods.

And the laissez faire concept is that government should never get involved. The market will fix itself. Even after a crash, the market will eventually boom again.

quote:

Education requires much more than the reading of books. Books teach you the theory, but you also need practical experience in order to be qualified. Such practical exercises require certain equipment. The cost in money and time of books and the equipment for exercising the application of theories adds up to an amount that is beyond many incomes. That is why education systems exist: to facilitate the books and equipment as well as teachers.

A majority of skills can be learned through books, and the use of pen and paper. Actual training can be done on the job. A socialist education system would not teach unessential things. So forget history, philosophy, art, etc. unless it is deemed neccessary for the well being of the people.

quote:

Inventions may come faster, but the inventions themselves would have lesser value.


I fail to see how something that comes sooner is of less value than the same thing that comes later.

That's like if I created quantum physics or something today, it is worth less because I did it for profit, and the socialist country that creates it 10 years later is worth more.

quote:

There is always a need for technical advancement.

True but there is not a NEED for certain kinds.

quote:

Who says that there would be no incentive?

I'm going off the fact that you've never offered any incentive besides stories of how eskimos never needed incentive 500 years ago.

quote:

When I refer to the sum of knowledge, I'm not referring to a physical fusion of brains! I'm referring to people with different interpretations of theories and practices coming together and sharing their ideas. Ever heard of the saying, "Two heads are better than one"? With a greater sum of knowledge as input, the output has greater value.


hehe. I have heard of the quote Two heads are better than one. I'm referring to the fact of people working together because this invention will profit them personally if they can invent it first, or people working together who will not benefit personally but at least Mister Trailer Park can benefit.

quote:

What gun?!


Gun is symbolic of force - in any form

quote:

Not free as in nobody pays, free as in openess and freedom. The people would have rights to good health and education instead of having to compete for them as privileges.


Actually I once considered the idea of a Socialist type health care system where each person in the country would pay $10.00 + $5.00 for each child per month. They would then recieve a little card that entitles them to visit a doctor free of charge (relatively speaking). I agree that our hospitals are currently out of whack.

Unfortunately there would be less incentive for doctors to do their best. I don't know how to fix all that really.

That's the only socialist program I have ever advocated, and it's somewhat based on what they have in several European countries (Czech republic for instance)

quote:

Thanks for ignoring my entire post about why there would be no war.

Didn't ignore it, just don't buy it.

If a socialist utopia emerged on the USA, and it was forced on us over our constitution, I would be one of the first to take up arms to preserve freedom. Socialism restricts freedom, economically, morally, and politically.

quote:

1. Anyone (whether they're "trailer park trash" or not) who beats their wife (whether it's one night or every night) would be punished.

2. "Excelling in life" could mean a hundred different things. Be more specific.

3. The tone of your statement seems to imply that living conditions would be poor. An unfounded assumption.


Answer to 1. What I'm implying is, that sort of human trash would be on the same social level as any upstanding citizen.

Answer to 2. Excelling in life can be simply expressed as rising above the Least Common Denominator.

Answer to 3. No I imply that living conditions would be equal for scum as well as good people. I apply "trailer park trash" on an equal opportunity basis. Whether they be rich or not.

quote:

Obviously, you didn't follow the recent federal election in Australia. The conservatives (Liberal Party of Australia) won again because they played on the people's fear of the country being "swamped" by "illegal queue-jumpers" from overseas (the Tampa was a big issue).

Obviously.

Sorry I don't keep up too much on what goes on "down under"

quote:

The motivation to screw each other over has less to do with human nature and more to do with a lack of choice. The structure of capitalist society makes it essentially necessary for people to screw each other over in order to survive, prosper, and advance in the social hierarchy.


I think the motivation is adapted to the situation yes. But if you want to talk about lack of choice, socialism. They wouldn't have the choice to really screw each other over. And to survive and prosper it isn't necessary, but quite often to advance it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menchise,

I am sorry, but it is obvious that you do NOT truly understand a capitalist system, as it truly is. A capitalist system is Self regulating, always has been, always will be. A capitalist system allows for quick innovation, due to competitition, the cheapest product does not always prevail.

Now, as far as health care is concerned.

Let me explain what happpened to healtcare in this country.

It's called Medicare, government healthcare.

It happened like this, people saw these endless government coffers to pay for all kinds of different procedures, and so they raised prices, problem is it raises prices across the board, and therefore those of us witrh private insurance pay the increased price as well.

Government Regulation has STIFLED competition, which again, drives up costs, which again hurts the private individual because our healtcare costs go up too.

Government intervention and regulation are the driving forces behind the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, the more the government tries to do something about, the worse it is going to get. If they would deregulate it and KILL medicare, the sooner the costs would stabalize and COME BACK DOWN!! Get the government out of it totally, you will see healthcare costs come down as the healthcare industry competes on a level playing field again.

That is how a capitalist Free Enterprise system works. Competition spurs growth, it also spurs more competition, and it drives costs to the consumer down. It also creates the demand for newer and better products, which in turn creates more jobs and in turn creates more competitiion. Capitalism is consumer driven, consumers control the market as far as how much it will cost them and what the product will do.

Now, to look at healthcare that is a miserable failure, we just need to look North of our border at the Canadian system. 75% tax rate, YOWSA!!!

Now, when the system was socialized, the government thought that it would be the FAIR thing to do. Well, guess what happened? All the GOOD doctors went south, FOREVER!!! This left them with a shortage of Doctors, and nurses. All pay was equalized across the whole range, people QUIT becoming Doctors, making the problem WORSE!!

Health care became EXPENSIVE as hell, why? No competition to control the costs, so they kept rising and rising and rising. Then, healthcare had to be rationed, there isn't enough for everyone, it takes 6-12 months for you to get surgery now, by that time if you have some sort of cancer, you are most likely dead. This happened to my grandmothers boyfriend, so I know how this works!! The cost to the canadian government has gone up at least 90% and they are going broke, they can't raise taxes much more without totally destroying thier economy, and you can't suck blood out of a turnip.

Guess what they are thinking? Yep, you got it, Privatising the healthcare industry. Wow, what a bizarre concept!! By messing with it in the first place, they screwed it up and screwed themselves over, and now that they are in deep trouble, oops time to privatize.

SOCIALISM NEVER WORKS, it destroys!!! ALWAYS!!! It has always destroyed whatever society or part of society it is tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to put words in Menchise's mouth or anything, but you'll probably hear "They aren't Socialist!"

Most assuredly their program is, and their health care is. They just couldn't compete with their cousins down south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I do NOT normally do this, I will take Menchise post statement by statement.

quote:

Since when does socialism force responsibility (and this time, don't mention the stalinist regimes)?


OK, I won't, but the fact of the matter is, ALL socialistic experiments have failed, why? because every person is put into the same mold. You are not rewarded based your output, so why should you even try.

Capitalism on the other hand DOES reward you on your output, therefore, the harder you work, the more you get.

quote:

A market economy does not have the capacity to provide enough opportunities for everyone.


I'd really like to know where you dug up this "fact", because it is blatantly false!! A market economy GROWS, therefore as it is growing it creates MORE jobs, a market economy is the ONLY economy that can support everyone!! Again, this so called fact is so beyond real that it is laughable.

quote:

I've never heard of giving credit to an economic system for the charity of people, which has no relevance whatsoever to capitalism.


BS, this statement is total BS, did you know that Bill Gates has a foundation that GIVES AWAY over 100 million dollars a year? how about Trump, he gives away money like it's water, I can name off thousands of people that are rich due to our economic system and therefore give some of it back into the community. I have given 10% of my total paycheck to charity for the last 5 years, and over 80% of the people I know give SOMETHING to charity each year. Why? because we can afford to!!! That's why!! In a capitalist system people have more money then they need, and a high percentage give to charity to help those less fortunate, not because we HAVE too, but because we WANT to, and it is ALL because of our economic system!!

quote:

Can you train a monkey to do it for eight hours a day, five days a week, 300 days a year (if not more)? It is very hard work, without which there would be no businesses to run.


Yep, give a monkey a banana and he'll do just about anything, and they don't care if it is repeptitive or not, but what I was saying is this, if you do not have a skill, then you can take out garbage, you can load trucks etc. ad nauseum, but, YOU CANNOT RUN A BUSINESS, which is what makes the economy work and creates the job that YOU have!! Without that business executive running that business and making all that money, YOUR job would not exist!! He deserves more because he has taken the risk, he has worked hard to get where he is, and he probably started out working at a McDonalds!! The great thing about a capitalist system, you can work your way up!!

quote:

That's not the way it works in a capitalist system. Payment is not based on skill; it's based on the demand and supply of labour. Aircraft designers are paid more because there are fewer of them, not because they have more skills.


Yes, and your point is what? If a person is an IT computer geek right now, they can pretty much write their own paycheck, if you are a good webmaster and know flash, Java and all the other fun stuff, you can write your own paycheck. At the same time, an aircraft designer has other skills that can be used in other industries if he gets layed off, and it will probably make as much money as he does now. No, Menchise, if you have a reasonable skill, it can make you money no matter what the economic condition, and you can always improve those skills to get more money!!

quote:

Private organizations have also created environmental disasters. One example is BHP's Ok Tedi mine, which polluted an entire river to the extent that it can't sustain life.


Uh, OH, a private company that polluted, oh no!! well, when I look at Russia and all the other satelite nations I cringe, they are an ecological DISASTER!!! This is what happens with socialism, NO ONE CARES, BECAUSE NO ONE PERSONALLY OWNS IT!! Human Nature Menchise, it's a fact of life!! and don't give me garbage about the USSR NOT being a socialism, it started out that way, and EVERY socialist country has become that way. Socialism is a failure, no matter where it is tried or how it is tried, it will ALWAYS self destruct!!

quote:

False again. Give me one quote by Marx that says "everyone should receive the same pay".


I couldn't care less what Marx says, his system DOES NOT WORK, because it is ALWAYS perverted into what Chian is and what the USSR was, ALWAYS!! It CANNOT work, it goes against Human Nature, therefore again, IT WILL SELF DESTRUCT!!

quote:

250 years? Where did you get that figure?! Not even the coal supply will last for 250 years!


You don't get out much do you Menchise, we are now able to pull oil from the rock around an empty well, we can pull coal from so deep in the ground that it was impossible to get at before. Our fossil Fuels will last us for just about forever in all honesty, our technolgy is getting better and better, and more and more efficient, why, because the consumers DEMANDS it!! Look at what happened in the USSR, they were one of the MOST wasteful societies EVER, thier country is DIRTY, SMELLY, and in REALLY bad shape, they are cleaning it up now, with a little help from us, but now that it is a capitalist society, things are moving faster and things are getting better.

quote:

Thanks for ignoring my entire argument about technological advancement.


Your statement was patently and historically false, consumption drives technology, look at computers, the USSR couldn't build our computers, why, they did NOT have the technological base, shoot, they used Atari cartridges in thier fighter jets for goodness sakes. Capitalist systems will ALWAYS outdistance a Socialist society in advacnement of technology, ALWAYS, because without that advancement it would stagnate, just as a Socialist society DOES!!

quote:

The cheapest solution makes the most money, not the best.

Another patent misstatement, The BEST is always what wins out, if one product does not do the job as well as another, but is cheaper that product will FAIL!! HELLO, the better the product, the more popular it becomes, which then brings the price of that product DOWN, because it's production costs come down. It costs less per unit to build millions then it does to produce thousands.

quote:

Thanks again for ignoring my argument about why the USSR and China were not socialist.


You ignore the fact that they started out as Socialist and then were perverted into what they were and are. Socialist societies will do this EVERY TIME!!! Human Nature, you cannot get away from it!!

quote:

In capitalism, the rewards are not yours if you're in the working class. See Surplus Value.


The working class, gotta love that class warfare rhetoric. BS!! Everyone in a capitalist society is in the WORKING CLASS, we ALL work, otherwise we would STARVE, no matter how much money you have. You have no idea how a capitalist society works, it is VERY obvious!! A rich person does not take thier money and HIDE it under a mattress, he invests it in other companies, in startup companies, this is work in itself, but those investments CREATE new jobs, which PAY money and benefits to the people who do them.

Menchise, I started working at the Age of 14, at a Baskin Robbins for 2.75 and hour, after high school I went to work as a warehouse guy for 6.00 an hour, then I went into the military, and made 1600 a month plus all the bennies, then I came home, took a job at 1400 a month in sales plus commission, that was 10 years ago. I am still in sales Menchise, any idea how much I make now? quadruple that amount and add commission. This is what happens in a capitalist society when you put your mind to it and work hard. YOU MOVE UP, you do not stagnate, you are not STUCK at the same job at the same pay forever, unless you CHOOSE to.

That's what it is all about Menchise, CHOICE and personal responsibility, in socialism you don't, in capitalism you do!!

quote:

LOL! I guess you've never heard of India, Mexico, Turkey, El Salvador etc.

They are government regulated free market economies, as the government regulates a capitalist society, it basically puts the brakes on growth, if left alone, a capitalist soiciety is the strongest and most durable type of economy.

quote:

Capitalist republics have also been perverted into oppressive regimes. See Nazi Germany, Indonesia under Suharto, and the Phillipines under Marcos.


Again, the government stepped in and regulated them into that, whereas if left alone, a free market economy is the best and most durable. Government interference causes all of these things.

quote:

Full state ownership is a stalinist idea which contradicts with the principle of common ownership, because the state is controlled by a specific group that is not necessarily representing the working class.


SAME, SAME, if YOU DO NOT own it, then why should you care about it? I don't care whether it is state controlled or the workers own it all, it will still come to the same thing, it is all just a semantic game. It comes down to the fact that the people that live in a house, DO NOT own the house, why should they care about it? So what if they "own everything" together, it still doesn't make it THIERS!!!

Socialism CANNOT work, it has never worked and NEVER will work, it will always be perverted into something else, and self destruct in a matter of 50 years, after that, it is just waiting to crumble. You will notice that China has finally allowed some capitalist ideas into it's economy, why? because that was the ONLY way that they could 1: stay in power, and 2: they knew it was the only way to get the economy Moving again!!

Your studies on paper, and the readings of books are wonderful Menchise, but when taken out in the REAL world, people die, and are made destitute, and thier worlds are destroyed. Socialism is a great dream Menchise, but that is ALL it is, and ALL it will ever be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should change this thread to "the complete ignorance of reality" thread.

What are you talking about 75 percent tax rate in Canada? What derranged part of your brain made that up? Do you even know where Canada is?

The system is also NOT a failure. It has its short-comings, no question. It has plenty of pluses. I have a good friend who's kidney don't work. He got a new one and it didn't cost him anything. He is on drugs for the rest of his life to prevent regection... those are paid for too.

When my grandfather died slowly of cancer it didn't put two generations of my family in debt. This isn't only people that can afford healthcare, this is everyone.

Now. Lets look at some other things. Education. How much does it cost to get a university education in the US? I'm not even going to compare it to Canada, there is no point.

Now lets look at the silly things people are saying. "The US is the most generous society in the world." Based on what? Your opinion? Canada has been voted, over and over again, the best place in the world to live. No one, but americans, have ever said that about the states.

"capitalism has always worked..." This, again, is not true. Original societies were not capitalist. The functioned on a barter system, and were generally what are now calld communes.

"Socialism rewards NOTHING, whether you are the hard worker or the lazy worker, you get the same thing, therefore the hard worker will see that and therefore work less hard, and then EVERYONE suffers" There are other forms of reward other than money. You, obviously, can't see that.

"That whole statement is the biggest load of BS that I have ever seen, if we are running out of a resource, call it oil as an example, even though we have over 250 years worth at this point just in discovered reserves. but say we are running out, a capitalist society will find a solution 10-20 times faster then a socialist society would, and there will ALWAYS be a solution found, because that is how a company makes money, and the best solution will make the most money!!" This is idiotic. People have found many solutions for many environmental problems. These are largely ignored because they are not immediatly as economically productive as other non-solution, so they are ignored by corporations. Capitalism lacks forsight. The fact is that ther ARE finit resources on this planet, and Capitalism is based on infinit growth. Any 2 year old that can add can understand this problem.

"and who told you this? the only way that socialism could possibly work would be at the point of a gun, see the USSR and China, this is HONORABLE MORAL GROUNDS?"

I READ the communist manifesto. China and the former USSR are not communist societies. They only pretend to be.

"Again, a statement with no factual historical basis. CAPITALISM works, it has always worked whenever it has been tried, capitalism PULLS EVERYONE out of poverty, it raises EVERYONES standard of living. In this country, if you make less then $20,000 you are considered below the poverty line, where else in the world is this true? NO WHERE!!! That's where." United States society is a perfect case in point. If you don't know your own statistics, that's your problem.

"Conclusion, Capitalism RAISES ALL boats, Socialism SINKS 99% of the boats"

You assume that all the boats are in the US. You ignore canibalistic forign policy.

"You have been brainwashe into a dreamworld, if you look at the facts, you will see how wrong you really are."

This from a man that thinks the US is the savior of the world. Look at the results of your last few "Lets go save some ignorant backwards nation campaigns." Kosovo is a depleted uranium badland, but you sure saved them good. Read some news that doesn't come from CNN or another patriot american. Oh, and how many people that are calling me brainwashed voted for G. W. Bush? The man can barely read a teleprompter. Also, somone said the US was a perfect example of different cultures coexisiting in an atmosphere of personal respect. I've never heard an offical government speech that didn't involve the words "god bless america!" How do you think buddhists, hindus, atheists etc feel about that?

Menchise is the only voice of reason in this thread and I salut him. I also congratulated on being more cool headed than myself.

Oh, and why shouldn't social responsability be forced? Why should responsability be optional? Why shouldn't consideration for the plight of other fellow human beings be mandatory?

Oh, and I AM Canadian. And I'm proud of it. I can go anywhere in the world, and when people find out I'm not an american they immediatly like me out of relief for the fact that I'm not an american. I can hang an american flag on my backpack, and walk around anywhere in the world and not get targeted for a violent act. Take your american flags to vietnam. I have access to medicare. I live in a country were we don't toss out a decent politician becaus of his personal affairs. I live in a country where the violent crime rate is actually going down! Who else can say that? Don't think crime and economics are related? If you don't, then your opinion isn't worth a damn thing anyway.

My sincere apologies to anyone I may have inadvertently offended. This post was meant primarily for people that tell me I'm brainwashed, and blab about how Canada is going to hell when the don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menchise,

Sorry if I missed it, but you ignored my earlier, more simple post, here it is with a small edit.

I see your idea, but why exactly would anyone work without power/land/ownership to aspire to? I see the merits of your system, but it assumes that every human being is somehow intrinsicly good, and will work for a greater good for society. If I work all day as a doctor, i'd expect to get something significant from it while someone else is working in some job moving boxes, and i'd want something to show for it, as would almost everyone in the world. After all, if i'm going to be doing work that you need a lot of skill, education, and investment, all day every day for my life, i expect to have a little bit more money than a Tech Support rep answering phones, or a mover, or a job with plenty of people who can do it without much skill. That's the fundamental flaw with a socialist system, it assumes intrinsic good and desire to help society. Realisticaly, society is lazy, stupid, procrasinates, and wants as much as they can get for nothing. Even if that isnt how people in a socialist system works, that's how it WOULD work since people have been living in a basically capitalist world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...