CommanderJohnson

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: This balance is inherent in socialism because the workers would only apply themselves to satisfying their own aggregate demand to the aggregate extent of how long and/or how hard they're willing to work towards supply. If some workers want more than everyone else, and those workers are willing to put in the hard yards to get it, then they'll get it. If they're unwilling, they don't. Simple and effective. Isn't that the way capitalism works? The more you work, the money money you get, the more stuff you can get? I'm not totally up on theories and theorists, but aren't you just advocating a capitalist system where the labor gets paid more than management instead of management getting paid more than labor?

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: ..because its a game, fool.Sometimes we forget.

quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: The one thing I thought was missing was a hard copy of the appendixes.The appendixes aren't meant to be hardcopy But they'd look cool.

C'mon Menchise, answer my questions in regard to specifically how socialism would work in the above scenarios.

quote:Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee: Heh, saw this a few months ago. Best score I got was 7 dead, 3 wounded. Beat that punks. Now I have to go back and keep trying! I was almost over the addiction too!

quote:Originally posted by Remo Williams: quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: ...I think they should kill two birds with one stone....and just give that piece of turf to the Palestinians. Hey! Sounds like a plan to me. All in favor say aye. How about this, we move all the Palestinians to Kashmir, then the US nukes Kashmir. Indian and Pakistan can't retaliate, the Palestinians can stop complaining about the Israelis (since they' are all dead) (since you KNOW they'll STILL want Jerusalem), and then everyone is nice and happy.

The US should just nuke Kashmir. Nothing left to fight over then. Small nuke war stops India and Pakistan from annihilating each other. [ 06-06-2002, 18:07: Message edited by: Dredd ]

quote:Originally posted by Tac: I hope I never meet the moron that coded that. He'll lose his teeth, jaw and limbs (all 6 of them). It aint even funny.BOOM! Ahhhh! Ha ha ha ha ha!

quote:Originally posted by Dredd: Next week I start flying a stormcarrier. Going to be fun managing all of those assets AND staying alive. Is it just me, or are the guns (especially main guns) on the Stormcarrier REALLY good, and the fighters and their pilots are much better. Stormcarriers rock.... Anyone have any advice for staging a massive ground assault on a base with a stormcarrier and it's equipment? Also, is it better to have 4 Stormcarrier fighters with 2 pilots each bombing or 8 with 1 each? [ 06-06-2002, 17:36: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Ok, this is really sick, but for some reason I got addicted to it. The Addiction I've only been able to kill 5 at a time, havent been watching wounded. Who cares about missing limbs?

quote:The process for determining this 'ratio' - if there is one - depends on the type of socialism, but in general, and strictly within the context of this hypothetical scenario, when the worker satisfies the demand for cloth to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for a car is satisfied. In return, when the other worker satisfies the demand for cars to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for cloth is satisfied.So someone who fills his/her demand of dsitributing or organizing that cloth gets the same thing that someone who mines iron ore all day? quote:That is probably the most varied factor of the different socialisms, thus I cannot answer that question on general terms. Some suggest a centralist state, others suggest an anarchistic democracy, and just about everything in between.Well whatever group is in the "management" or leadership role will just change the system to suit themselves. In EVERY government, democracy, socialist, communist, the people in charge change the rules to suit their interests. In socialistic and other left-wing governments, it is assumed that people are inherently GOOD and will not do that. At the point you have a ruling class, your defeating the point of socialism since those people in the ruling class (and going with your previous definition of socialism) can EASILY exploit the labor through their management. quote: quote:A ruling class of some sort to judge that extent. Like I said, it's the most varied factor, and one of the mostly hotly debated in socialist circles. For example, one of ParEcon's criticisms of Marxism-Leninism is its tendency to merely replace the ruling class with a coordinator class. Well, what type of socialism do you personally/specifically advocate? We can't have a constructive argument about ALL types of socialism, since flaws of one will be saved by flaws of another. For all intents and purposes, lets use your advocacy of socialism, and all the pro-capitalists views of capitalism (I think we're advocating American capitalism or lasse-faire). The problem with a ruling class it seems, in whatever type of socialism you advocate, is that they can easily change the system to help themselves or their friends, and it'd be just as easy to warp that power into an oppressive organization to feed totally off the people (like in the USSR) quote: quote:Ok, no one has told me yet, and I really want you to tell me now. How EXACTLY is a socialist society going to work? You keep talking in abstract terms, but that ISNT the real world. I'm speaking in general terms because socialism is very broad. It's just like me asking you how a capitalist system would work: other pro-capitalists would disagree with your explanation unless you described it in general terms, because there are many types of capitalism: the American way is very different from the Japanese way, or the Swedish way, etc. If you want me to respond to all of those questions, you need to be more specific about what socialism you want me to describe, because there are some types of socialism that I also disagree with, just as there are some types of capitalism that you disagree with.

How about we just put the military superiority this way. If there was a US vs Israel conventional war, (or nuclear) Israel's armed forces would be crushed very, very, very quickly. Israel's troops may be elite, but 500 New American troops can take out 150-250 Israeli vets, and if you start getting involved in the aircraft, Israel doesn't have F-22s or the stealth bombers, and you cant shoot down what you can't see (F-22s are radar resistant too).

I don't get why the little piece of land is that important. It can't be giving either side THAT many resources with that much fighting there. I hope they aren't stupid enough to use nukes.

To tell you the truth, I say either decentralize the government OR sell everything the military gets to civilians.

I liked Baldur's gate II. Should i get the game?

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Dredd, have you been paying attention? Why don't you stop calling people's ideas and belief’s stupid and the same won't be applied to you? You won't even make the distinction between stupid idea's and stupid people....just rollin’ it all into one grossly inappropriate and inaccurate stereotype. If you think you have a legitimate position or idea don’t give me the room to dismiss your idea’s out of hand because of poor remarks that reflect a narrow mind. I never called your ideas or beliefs stupid, I just disagree with the validity of them in the United States. Yes, i'm against gun control. Yes, i'm against centralization of governmental power and the discarding of the Constitution. No, I don't think that the United States government has enough money invested into the military that they could outfit all their troops with invulnerable body armor that US civilians couldn't stop. No, I don't think that the government will turn against its people in the forseeable future due to the make-up of the armed forces. quote: And where Jaguar was warning about ten years (applied to anti gun polices) I would warn you about dismissing this idea. I work in an Army R+D area. I have seen unclassified data showing these ideas for the future. I can’t even imagine what is in the works that is classified. I've agreed with just about all of Jaguar's points regarding gun control, but I highly doubt that the government is corrupt to the extent that they are going to get invulnerable equipment, take all of our guns, and then oppress us all. I guess the main point i agree with is the end result. The citizen-army of this country isn't going to turn against it's people, and if gun control legislation is stopped, I highly doubt that the scenario would happen. quote: If you think it matters which of the two parties controls spending makes any difference to weapons development your mistaken. This is high dollar stuff and the network is already in place. If what you think of as a liberal controlled government could dismantle (even if they wanted to) this system you are mistaken. Something more fundamental would have to change before that could happen. The services will shift funding to accomplish the goals they set (or wait out the political storm)…. you would be surprised at the maneuver room they have for this. And you would further be surprised at what policy corporate interest can effect when properly motivated. If there's no money, there's no money. The liberals will pass gun control legislation but will also not increase military spending. The conservatives will increase military spending but not get rid of our guns. The only way both will happen is if there's a radical change in American politics. The system is in place, but the money going into it, which is needed for the type of deployment and construction of that much equipment, is not.

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth. Ok, lets look at the last few bits of that since it's probably the most important thing. "Everyone would be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extend of their contribution to the production of that wealth". What is the "social wealth"? How would you contribute to that wealth? By making good and doing labor? So lets say that weaver referred to earlier makes some cloth. Does cloth need to be in demand for that person to have food? How much production of cloth is enough for that person to enjoy the use of a car? Most important, WHO determines what the EXTENT of their contribution to that wealth is? A ruling class of some sort to judge that extent. How are they CONTRIBUTING to the social wealth? What is their "contribution" equal to? They aren't working, so at that point you have a higher "class" since they have power over determining who has contributed to the social wealth to what extent. At that point, socialism ceases to exist since the ruling class can exploit the labor of everyone else because of their power, and the people closely related to the people in power have a greater chance to succeed in the society. Ok, no one has told me yet, and I really want you to tell me now. How EXACTLY is a socialist society going to work? You keep talking in abstract terms, but that ISNT the real world. Menchise, if you really beleive in a socialist system, please explain exactly how one would be formed in the current world, and exactly what effects it would have. Please explain: 1. If a country becomes socialist, it's interactions with other nations militarily and economically. 2. How it's government would transition and then subsequently work. 3. What the people in the CURRENT system would be doing in a socialist system. Please explain what they would do in their every day lives, their MOTIVES for doing those things, how their achievement would be measured, and how they would gain material things in regards to: a. Government Officials b. CEOs and high executives of companies c. Middle management d. Independent business owners e. Employees of independent business owners. f. People surviving solely off welfare g. Homeless people h. Radical groups (the *radical* state militias, neo-nazis, KKK members, racists, etc) If you can respond to the three above questions and all sub-questions in a logical and realistic manner, i'm quite sure that everyone who is arguing against socialism would STRONGLY support it. Short of that, socialism is utopian and would NEVER work and NEVER be helpful.

quote:Originally posted by Soback: Do you think Israel will be attacked on the 6th? (I am not going to list the reasons as to why in this thread, because if you have no knowledge in this complex matter then you have no business posting your ammateur opinions.)Won't happen. The defender almost always gets sympathy from other countries.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: pah! back when I started out, if you had a 300 bps modem, you were it. In fact, I think I still have one of my 1200/2400 bps Hayes Smartmodems lying in a box around here somewhere. I had one of those 2400 bps too, same brand as yours. Then upgraded to 33.6. Then 56k. Then DSL. I through 56k was the greatest after 33.6. DSL rules. But today, anyone who doesnt have at least a 56k modem doesn't deserve to use the internet.

quote:Originally posted by Grayfox: seen the previews, and saw it resembled the book as much as clear and present danger did... i think ill wait for video.I like Clear and Present Danger, but of course I never read the book. I hope they make a movie based on Executive Orders. Anyway, I think Sum of All Fears might be closer to the book since Clancy was an executive producer (but of course, never read the book, so I wouldn't know). But trust me, that movie rocks!

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: And I think the time is coming...or is already here when the government will have weapons that citizenry cannot fight against with conventional means. These systems will be too expensive and powerful for private citizens to own. So the only solution in my mind is to decentralize governmental power even further. Increase checks and balances, have easier access to information by the private citizens and break up systems of power that threaten a democracy allegedly created for the people.People still die from bullets. Again, i'm totally against gun control as i've stated earlier, but I don't think it's as dangerous right now as your making it out to be. The government (because of the stupid socialists and liberals) can't appropriate enough funds to give all their troops super-body armor that civilian weapondry can't pierce. Also, one thing that we still have going for us is that our military is made up of citizens who believe in democracy and are unlikely to open fire and oppress American civilians.

Tell me SOMEONE else has seen this movie. That movie was PACKED at the FIRST showing on Saturday. [ 06-03-2002, 14:45: Message edited by: Dredd ]

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Clients connecting to an Internet server require a 56K modem connection at the MINIMUMJust wondering? What technological dark ages freak has anything less than a 56K modem? They go for like 10 bucks or less.

That article is proof that socialists need to be shot. So the people don't have the internet. Maybe if they MADE MORE MONEY they could AFFORD the internet. Also, how exactly are the poor going to GET COMPUTERS to use the internet on? We need to provide those too? Maybe that money would be better used to increase defense spending, pay off the defecit, help social security (i may be against most social programs, but I want my grandparents taken care of), or maybe work on scientific or space tech. Socialism holds back society as a whole....

Based on a Clancy book. Loved the movie. 8/10. I followed it well, but you need to be somewhat intelligent and informed to follow it at points though. Go see it. Interesting after 9/11. If they only made one off of Executive Orders.