Raven

IÔÇÖve found that most stations have at least one spot that you can get to where you are hidden from enemy turrets, usually looks like a docking bay of some kind. Just hide in there and you can safely turn your cloak off except when an enemy fighter gets lined up with you just right. If you donÔÇÖt have a carrier though, donÔÇÖt bother. Station capture with a cruiser is virtually impossible. [ 05-28-2002, 16:51: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote: If I am say, a grunt that assembles machinery, in a sucessful company in a capitalist system, I am, by definition, being rewarded less than the income I actually produce for the company I'm working for. Actually, you are paid a wage determined by the market value for your work, your credentials, and other similar things. If I'm selling screws to a company that makes widgets and they make money off of said widgets your reasoning would argue that I'm not selling my screws (as well as other raw material) for enough. quote: What makes that fair exactly? NOTHING, ITS NOT FAIR! But it does work and that counts for a lot more then fair. Would it, pray tell, be fair to stick people in some dumb job that they hate where they suffer from bureaucratic mismanagement that is engendered by an economic system in which skill or competency are neither rewarded nor really required? quote: If I own x compay because my daddy died and left it to me, I'm not on top because I worked harder, or better, or am superior (as opposed to genetically inferior as the scary neo-nazi guy mentioned) it is a result of chance. Life isnt fair, some people are smarter, stronger, faster, more charismatic, more dedicated, or richer. Being born rich is like being born with an above average IQ, its the luck of the draw and thats the way it goes. Like I said, its not fair, but what in life is? quote: as opposed to genetically inferior as the scary neo-nazi guy mentioned That is bloody rude and no more accurate then the rest of your opinions. quote: If I, for the sake of argument, pay some guy to run the company for me, and he vastly improves the profitability of the company, he is still getting the same salary, I, who do nothing, am making vastly more money... This can and does happen in capitalism. If he is worth his beans as a manager he is getting some type of stock option, or at least buying stock, if you are worth beans as an employer your giving the man a raise. If he doesnt get stock, thats his problem, if he doesnt get a raise he should probably quit, thats your problem (or his if he doesnt quit). Someone with the skills to succeed at such a job is very valuable and no doubt knows that. quote: A socialist system could be set up so that the ammount of income my labour actuall produces is actually given to me. After, of course, paying for the stupendously large (and inefficient) bureaucracy that decides how much your labor is worth, me, I would rather just get the money at market value. quote: This isn't how the communist manifesto explains things, but no one said it was the bible. The communist manifesto should be filed right next to the necronomicon. quote: Of course, people can, and do, build their own companies. I have nothing but admiration for these people. They do not however make up the majority of the population. Why should the system be set up to benefit a minority? The system will always benefit a minority, always. Either it will be the rich elite, or the politically powerful elite, or the criminal elite (something of which there will be a lot of in any socialism). Most people would prefer that its the rich and powerful rather then the criminal, do you feel otherwise? quote: And who says production is the primary objective of life? What did John Milton actually produce? He is the perhaps the greatest figure of english literature, but did he make anything you could sit on, or eat? No. No one, but it is the primary factor in determining pay. Will your socialist regime pay authors and artists for there work or will they have to do it in there spare time? If the latter is true, will they then be able to sell the books or will they simply have to give them away? This is, of course, assuming that the authors arent locked up and the books banned; thats known to happen in socialism you know. quote: Capitalism, also, is not a the end all and be all of economic theory, and social systems. Youre right, there is always feudalism. quote: Just because it is the current system, doesn't make it the best system, and even if it were, it doesn't mean it can be improved/limited/ revised. No, but it is the best system anyone has come up with yet. quote: Lets all sit on our asses, secure in the belief that the world will continure on its happy way because we all believe in capitalism. A system based on the principle of infinite expansion, in a world of finit resource and space. Surly it'll never cause problems. Inflation doesn't exist. Oh, and just as capitalism encourages the best in people, it'll encourage the best in social conscience, and environmental concern. Surly it'll result in the best option for out environment (and our continured existence) even if it isn't the most profitable course of action... Ignorance IS bliss isn't it? BAH BAH! BAH! BAH! I cant believe I really heard that! Absolutely BAH! If you havent figured it out yet, that is the biggest crock of maggot ridden fecal matter I have heard in a good long while. There is no reason to believe that a large and clumsy bureaucracy lead by a democratic system that encourages selfish voting and mob rule will be any better at handling the environment then capitalism. The solution to pollution exists with technology, and everything I know about socialism says that while it is good for heavy manufacturing it is crap for the sciences and for high tech applications. quote: I did see the "I lived under socialism" statment... And I don't know the exact circumstances, but I imagine that's where you get your irrational fear of socialism, which is understandable. If I hit you over the head with a brick does that make you want to be hit again? I should hope not. Is this because you have an irrational fear of being clobbered with a brick or because it rather hurts? quote: I don't doubt that capitalism looks pretty damn good when compared to whatever was labeled capitalism or socialism there... However taking the particular and making it the rule, the generality, is innapropriate and silly. But it is the rule, and I dont see any sign of that changing either. There have been a number of socialist societies so far, and while they have not been truly communist they HAVE in fact been socialist. quote: Whatever label it had, doesn't make it socialism, and there is no rule saying that all socialist setups must be designed and implemented that way. I'm not sure exactly which socialism Soback lived in, but I have little doubt that it was socialist. quote: Your problem is that you fail to look beyond your immediate environment, and you make the erronious assumption that all other discomfort, disorder, pain, suffering and bad luck is the result of laziness and stupidity. I make no such assumption, and I am still a strong supporter of capitalism. As far as looking beyond my environment, at least I dont argue that I should gain by legitimized theft. quote: This, in itself, is the height of inhuman, stupidity and narromindedness. Its very human, and as I am extremely intelligent (if my writing doesnt tell you then perhaps my IQ of about 140 will) so you stupidity argument is completely void. As far as narrow-mindedness goes, with the generally inaccurate assessments that you have been giving everything else I'm inclined to dismiss this as just another such statement for though I have no real way of arguing against it, you have not really brought forth any evidence either. It might, however, be the height of stupidity and narrow-mindedness to think that successful people owe you money because of your failings. [ 05-28-2002, 17:35: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote: Democrats helps the world and build relationships with poorer countries. Republicans build up a shell and show they are superior. Repeat. My point of view. You are correct, however I would much rather be in a position of power then have everyone like me. I'm not saying that good foreign relations is a bad idea, nothing could be further from the truth, but by having a strong military it becomes less necessary to use the military at all. IsnÔÇÖt that the whole point of nuclear weapons? You make them so that you never are in a position where you need them. About the Chinese space program though, thatÔÇÖs extremely cool.

quote: Don't think so. Trust me on this, you did. quote: Wrong. The economic model won't work without the infrastucture. The infrastructure is tied hand in hand with the economic model. Ok, letÔÇÖs try this one again. The need for infrastructure is independent of a governmentÔÇÖs economic model, as in no matter the economic model there is a need for infrastructure, as in what I said in my last post. It doesnÔÇÖt work the other way, however, and that is where youÔÇÖre getting confused. I am not trying to say that an economic model is similarly independent of infrastructure and to imply that from my statements would be entirely incorrect. Furthermore it would be similarly incorrect to assume that because all economic models rely on infrastructure that they all require exactly the same infrastructure. Nor, for that matter, should you extrapolate this to mean that the infrastructure of two or more economic models need by definition be different in part or entirety. There, I'm fairly sure IÔÇÖve covered all of my bases. quote: Menchise Socialism has not presented his plan for infrastructure. You see, thatÔÇÖs the wonderful thing about Menchisean socialism; itÔÇÖs defined by what itÔÇÖs not rather then by what it is. Though I am in no way an expert on Menchisean socialism I feel safe in making the following statements. Menchisean socialism is relatively free of crime. Menchisean socialism isnÔÇÖt a hive. Menchisean socialism doesnÔÇÖt pay everyone the same amount. Menchisean socialism doesnÔÇÖt pay the unemployed at all. Menchisean socialism doesnÔÇÖt have unemployment problems. Menchisean socialism doesnÔÇÖt fail. I could probably go on, but no matter how much I say you will never understand Menchisean Socialism, itÔÇÖs totally baffling to the utmost degree and absolutely incomprehensible to the stable mind. This, you see, is the backbone of Menchisean socialism, less anyone understands about it less they are able to argue against it. quote: Dragonlady, It makes me SOOOO happy when someone starts to quote the constitution to me. I LOVE IT!!! My pleasure

quote: You were more interesting back then. Bah! quote: Heavens no. Far too late for that. First I don't want to lose what I already put in. Second this is not the type of thing that needs privatized. Insurance companies would look at every thing from your health to the condition of your transportation and set rates accordingly. As far as loosing what you put in, I'm sure something could be arranged between the government and the private insurance companies. As for the bean counting typical of private insurance, thatÔÇÖs kind of the point. Rather then stealing money from the populace as the government does the private insurance will make money selling insurance, the alternative to bean counting is simply having high rates for everyone. quote: It doesn't? Coulda fooled me. For the supply and demand of socialism to work you would still need roads. This has been one of the bigger issues in other threads. Who would decide this? Socialism would still need someone to decide these things. IE a government. Gods, talk about totally misunderstanding me. All modern governments need infrastructure (I donÔÇÖt know about ancient ones, but they probably would too), and thus it is independent of economic model. In feudalism there was infrastructure, in capitalism there is infrastructure, and in socialism there is infrastructure. ItÔÇÖs universally necessary. quote: I can agree that libraries are not infrastructure. But I would hate to lose them. I donÔÇÖt know, I think you could consider libraries a kind of infrastructure. But even if you donÔÇÖt, they are important if not necessary for modern societies and thus will not be abandoned any time soon. quote: I have no problem with the federal government coordinating state cooperation on roads, but they should not pay for it, this is a state by state issue, the fed's coordinate, the states pay for it. EASY stuff. The founding fathers thought of this and explained how that would work within the boundaries of the constitution. Well I donÔÇÖt think that anyone is going to argue with you on this one, youÔÇÖre exactly right. There is one exception, however, postal roads. One of the powers of congress as set out by article 1 section 8 of the constitution is ÔÇ£to establish post offices and post roads.ÔÇØ [ 05-26-2002, 16:52: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote: Well parents have a lot of responsibility....but how much these days? Seems more and more if you don't lock up the kids your rolling the dice. I imagine that locking them up is just as much a roll of the dice, though I would never put myself in that position to begin with. quote: This dude had preexisting conditions....now the parents are trying to turn a buck...sick $%@#@. Yes, but it works. Actually, thatÔÇÖs not true, it may just be my vestigial belief in the fairness of the system but I sincerely doubt that it will work. Everyone is going on about how dumb the ÔÇ£kidÔÇØ is, but it seems that the parents are even stupider. I mean come on; they might as well sue the manufacturer of the gun he killed himself with. Hell, if they were any smarter they just might try to sue the kidÔÇÖs parents for negligence or some similar nonsense. [ 05-26-2002, 07:24: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote: My point is that the level of wages does not determine whether workers are oppressed or not, hence the first question in my response. Then what exactly does make someone oppressed? Most people would say that the use of force to make someone act in a given way is oppression, if your definition is different then could you explain it. quote: What one owner is offering a worker affects what other owners offer their workers. The aggregate effect of this is the market. Therefore, the market is not an impartial entity. Very true, but I never claimed impartiality and I donÔÇÖt think that it is necessary or even desirable. quote: Not true, because there are always unemployed who are desperately looking for work. They will take the jobs with less pay, thus the owner will have more profit than the high-paying owners, thus that owner expands faster, undercuts the competition, and forces other owners to lower the pay of their workers or to cut other costs in order to stay in business. Unskilled or minimum skill jobs only. Skilled workers donÔÇÖt have such a problem gaining employment unless there is a great excess of said workers. quote: If someone wants to be an artist, they can try. If that someone can support themselves on that profession, then it benefits society anyway. If that someone can't support themselves on that job, which means that there was insufficient demand for the art, then chances are that someone would not need a government to make a math-related job sound appealing. So what, the artist sells his art on the free market? Seems capitalist to me. quote: It never ceases to amaze me how so many anti-socialist arguments are based on the assumption that socialists have no common sense. ItÔÇÖs an easy assumption to make, trust me on this. quote: Deficit or equilibrium? Yes, Deficit. Equilibrium does exist, but there are always some areas in which new businesses can form, a deficit. quote: That's not what I said! Only the second category would not be counted, for obvious reasons. The first and third categories would be counted as unemployed. The first category are only between jobs due to some production changes and will have new jobs imminently, and the third category is capable of getting a job at any time because socialism can sustain them. The 'suicide' reference was not a serious comment; it was taken out of context. If some people in the third category remain on the street because they're satisfied with charity, then that's their choice. Full employment does not mean that every single able individual is constantly working. Here is a brief definition from the American Institute for Full Employment: Full Employment: universal access to jobs with career potential for all who can work, especially those who are receiving public assistance as a substitute for the opportunities and rewards of paid work. Socialism can sustain this while capitalism cannot. I recall that a while back you were going on about how capitalism could only support the employment of 95% of the population at best and that with socialism this wouldnÔÇÖt be a problem, yet clearly unemployment would exist in socialism, thus this argument against capitalism is void. As far as what the American Institute for Full Employment said, I couldnÔÇÖt care less. There definition is obviously meant to be deceiving so that they can talk about one thing but make it sound like something else. quote: The pay would be relative to the labour expended and the worker's labour capacity. Demand determines what products are produced, thus the economy can gear production towards demand, but the products themselves are produced by labour, thus it is labour that makes those products valuable. So if you have a factory put out 1,000 giant inflatable yellow ducks they are worth the labor that went into making them? I'm a skeptic. quote: What do you mean by 'easy life'? Well, to have enough money to do whatever I like (within reason). To be comfortable, to not have to work much, that kind of thing. That requires a lot of money, something which can be accumulated in capitalism but not in socialism. quote: What is not average, sheepish, or servey to you? I just don't know what you're getting at. Do you want to be the next Napolean or what? What a pleasant thought Seriously though, what I am saying is that if itÔÇÖs illegal to gain power above and beyond what everyone gets, only people with out conscience will have power. I'm referring to both political and economic power, but even if just economic power was forbidden then those with political power would use it to gain economic power for the better lifestyle it would bring them. This would mean that the people with the least conscience would have the most power, economic and political. I donÔÇÖt think that is what you had in mind for a perfect society. quote: Interesting. Well, assuming that you're talking about pre-university schooling (e.g. elementary and high) one way to deal with this would be to make schooling a legal requirement. Before you start yelling 'oppression' from the rooftop I must inform you that capitalisms also do this (in Australia everyone must complete grades 1-10). This is common sense because children generally cannot conceive the consequences of not going to school, thus they cannot make a responsible decision in that context. Yes, I mean college, the though of basic education being anything other then compulsory hadnÔÇÖt occurred to me. quote: If you're talking about university education, then I wouldn't worry. There are always someones who want to do somethings, and there are only so many burger-flipping vacancies. BUT THATÔÇÖS MY POINT, there would be too many unskilled workers because the government would be required to employ them all, or maybe train them just a little. Requiring some people to get a college level education while others could just flip burgers would be playing into the beehive stereotype you mentioned above quite nicely. Subsequently, requiring everyone to go through college would be wasteful as many would still end up flipping burgers. quote: Well, if they're such a pain that nobody can work with them, then I guess they could be brought in line the same way that capitalism does it. Fire them and let them get a taste of the unemployed life for a while. Which would mean that some people would be unemployed forcibly, which would negate what you said about everyone having the opportunity to get a job. Otherwise it is a good idea. quote: Ahh, the 'same pay for everyone' stereotype. Only some socialisms support that, and they're not the popular ones. LetÔÇÖs have an explanation of Menchisean Socialism. quote: I think Dragon Lady had it right a couple pages back. Enough (mostly) capitalism that rewards productivity with a touch of social programs to help the truly needy (disabilty), lend a helping hand in times of trouble (unemployment insurance), and provide a little something for everyone (roads, libraries). I changed my stance a little from back then, people should use private insurance (and some type of unemployment insurance would be a logical derivative of such a policy). As far as roads and libraries go, thatÔÇÖs infrastructure and has nothing to do with socialism.

What is it they say about damn lies and statistics very funny though.

Ok, this is going to be a long one quote: An interesting choice of words. What do you mean by 'legal' oppression? No doubt he means oppression that is given at least tacit approval by the law. There are types of illegal oppression, including sweatshops, protection rackets, blackmail, the list goes on. quote: Since when is oppression determined by the level of wages? What if Todd, or the garbage man, or the high school janitor, or the kid had guns to their heads at the time? But they donÔÇÖt, so quit trying to avoid the question. quote: Since when did workers decide how much they're going to be paid? As I recall, the final decision is made by the owner. Not exactly, because though it is the owner who decides what an individual worker is paid it is the market that decides what most workers of a given type are paid. If the owner (or manager, or whoever) pays less then what others are willing to pay then he will have trouble retaining workers. Furthermore, what a type of workers are willing to work for also affects how much that type of worker is paid. And before you get on my case demanding an elaborate definition, by type I am referring primarily to such things as education level and job description. quote: In a proper socialism, you have more than a choice: you have a voice in the decision making process, thus you have a say in the availability of choices. In capitalism, the owners decide what choices are available, hence one of the reasons why it's oppressive. ThatÔÇÖs a little narrow. Workers can decide what kind of job they try to get, what education they get, how well the do at said education. Similarly, it is possible for a socialist society to oppressive about such things. After all, if someone wants to be an artist but is really good at math the government could (depending on how itÔÇÖs set up) demand that said individual become and accountant. After all, by working as an artist he is reducing his value to society at large, and if I recall correctly socialism is suppose to be about what benefits the society rather then the individual. quote: Could you please elaborate, or at the very least, explain that statement? Well, it takes a lot of work to succeed in an economic sense, and because some people go out of business it creates a deficit of business owners that can be filled by others. Furthermore, there are new areas for business that are created by expanding technology. Thus, even if big business try to choke off smaller businesses that doesnÔÇÖt mean they will always succeed. quote: Coordination doesn't need to be exact, and probably wouldn't be. If a small number of temporarily unemployed are generated, then temporary provisions can be made. It wouldn't be much more 'clumsy' than the corporate bureaucracy of capitalism, especially if planning is coordinated between de-centralized planners rather than one central group of planners. There are three types of people that donÔÇÖt have jobs, those who are temporarily unemployed (as with my factory scenario), those who are physically unable to get a job (too old, too young, disabled, mentally ill, or whatever), and those who are to lazy or drunk or whatever to get jobs. You claim repeatedly and with great vigor that socialism is able to guarantee 100% employment by ignoring people of the first two categories (or at least it seams, you say that some people would be between jobs but everyone in the work force will be employed, go figure) and classifying people of the third type as mentally ill and thus ignoring them too. I will point out that as long as there are people willing to give beggars a bit of spare change on the side of the rode and charities willing to give food or money or whatever there will be bums, you canÔÇÖt starve them out and itÔÇÖs not suicide so you canÔÇÖt ignore them as part of the mentally ill category. So, to wrap things up, your logic says, ÔÇ£everyone who is counted in the workforce will be employed because only people employed will be counted in the work force.ÔÇØ ItÔÇÖs not a very convincing line of reasoning, but then circular argumentation rarely is when you get to the root of it. quote: It is class struggle when such change requires one class to overthrow another, which is exactly what happened when capitalism replaced feudalism (the bourgeoisie overthrew the lordships). Struggle differs from warfare, but I really think that arguing over nomenclature like this is pointless. quote: Since the labour that is expended is geared toward satisfying demand, and payment is based upon the labour expended, your point is null. So then are you trying to say that all labor is worth the same amount or that people will be paid different amount. You say the work is going to satisfy a demand, but unless payment is based on supply and demand then they pay is either worth more or less then what the current demand warrents. quote: I like the way that you don't let me get away with anything. HAH! I wonÔÇÖt let you get away with anything, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. quote: In socialism, people don't need to be ahead of each other in order to be successful, thus there would be less crime in that context because more people would be successful. I suppose this is because everyone will be supplied for (as long as they work) and thus there will be no competition. Brain surgery isnÔÇÖt that advanced Menchise, people will compete against each other and nebulous ÔÇ£personal fulfillmentÔÇØ or whatever you want to call it is not enough for everyone. It certainly isnÔÇÖt enough for me. I am of such an inclination that I like to succeed so as to be able to live the easy life, to do as I please. This is simply not possible in socialism through legal means, and somehow I doubt that you will be able to brainwash everyone. LetÔÇÖs try looking at this from another direction, from everything youÔÇÖve gleaned about me from my various modes of argumentation do you think that I would simply sit back and be average? Most everyone who disagrees with my arguments has at least once pointed out that I am cruel and care little for my fellow human beings, so why should I settle for being just another sheep in the heard? Why should I waist my life serving a society that has no value to me beyond what I can get out of it? This is a bit of an exaggeration (I'm not totally heartless no mater how much I try) but it none the less make my point, there would no doubt be a number of people like me in any society of significant size, and at least some will manage to secure positions of power for themselves illegally because they donÔÇÖt care if itÔÇÖs legal so long as they get away with it. Some people will rise to the top in any society, but if you make such success illegal then only those who donÔÇÖt care will have power. As fun as that would be, it probably wouldnÔÇÖt be what you had in mind. quote: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in my previous post. If the people want their demand to be satisfied, then they must have the skills to do so, thus education is best for them. Secondly, because of human nature, a lot of people would not be satisfied with constantly flipping burgers for the rest of their lives. Marx himself described the human need for variety and enrichment of experience in one's life. No, you made yourself perfectly clear, people will get an education because itÔÇÖs necessary for the society to work. The second part is very true, the first is very false. Some people will no doubt get an education anyway as you said (I know I would) and some will get one because they are altruists, but that simply isnÔÇÖt enough of the population. Most people would see the problem caused by not enough educated workers and figure that there only one person and whether or not the get an education will make no difference to the society has a whole. ItÔÇÖs like voting, many people donÔÇÖt vote because they figure that there one vote makes no difference in the grand scheme of things, but if everyone voted our country would be a lot different. Now, if such a little thing as voting is to much for someone to do what makes you think they would get an education? To add another point to the ones we are arguing I would like to ask you what is to be done about incompetent workers. Since everyone is guaranteed a job if they want one then some bozo would be able to make an ass out of himself with impunity (after all, werenÔÇÖt you telling Jag that firing a worker because he was mouthing off was oppressive). Imagine if you will the kind of chaos that would result in a workplace where practical jokes and generally unpleasant people were not punished (and I'm not talking about anything that could warrant legal action either). Now remember you couldnÔÇÖt fire someone over something like this because that would be tantamount to murder (at least, if what you said about not having a job being suicide is true) at the worst or at least reducing them to a permanent homeless state (after all, there would be no other employer besides the state to hire them). Reduced pay or other normal punitive measures wouldnÔÇÖt be applicable because such things simply arenÔÇÖt done in a socialist system (after all that would mean that some people make more money than others do). P.S. Just to prove you right (that I donÔÇÖt let you get away with anything), labor doesnÔÇÖt have a u in it. [ 05-24-2002, 20:23: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Well, now not only do violent video games and films make people violent, but addictive games make them commit suicide. Go figure.

LMAO!

I donÔÇÖt know, sounds cool to me. It will be interesting to see how it turns out anyway.

quote: The market can only sustain so many owners before overproduction causes a recession, thus skill, luck, and motivation are secondary factors. There is also the futile struggle with existing big businesses nearby, who can easily afford to sell their products at a loss until the small outlets collapse (a common tactic, particularly by grocery store chains). Which is why it takes a lot of work. Between some people going out of business and some people succeeding it works. quote: Full employment is sustainable in socialism because the economy is geared toward cooperative and/or collaborative production, so the labor that is required to meet demand can be distributed to the entire workforce. I think you underestimate the problem, what happens when technology reduces the demand for workers? Say a factory drops some people because it upgrades to automation, what would happen? Are there jobs waiting for those workers already because this has all been planed ahead, or do they get to be unemployed for a week or two while the bureaucracy finds someplace else for them to work? Similarly, are there technicians already available to operate those robots, or do they have to wait for the bureaucracy to assign them new people? If you want total employment all the time it means that there are no pool of temporarily unemployed laborers to draw upon. This would mean a massive amount of coordination for the hirings to line up exactly with the firings, and that would mean a lot of bureaucracy. Large bureaucracies are slow, very slow. The economy for any area managed like this would be about as dynamic as the proverbial badly lubricated android. Perhaps if all world economies were equally clumsy it would make no difference, but with capable competing neighbors such a system would be woefully handicapped. quote: Sure, some people within the age group could be criminal, mentally ill, lazy, or whatever. If they're criminals, they will be prosecuted. If they're mentally ill, and that illness makes them unable to work, then they won't be expected to work; they will be treated. If they're lazy, thus unwilling to work, then they'll receive nothing. So we are letting those who donÔÇÖt work die out, well, thatÔÇÖs fine with me. quote: Call it what you want. The division is there and it has resulted in open conflict and revolution in the past (e.g. the capitalist revolutions that overthrew feudalism). Yea, and there is a division between the young and the old, and every so often the young eclipse the old, but do we call it age warfare. No. ItÔÇÖs the same with economic systems, old economic methods are periodically replaced by newer ones, but that is hardly class warfare. quote: The economy is planned and production is collaborative, thus labour is always geared towards demand. Yes, but my point was that payment is not based on demand. quote: Since caring for those who are unable to work is a paid job, the demand would be satisfied by labour. What about people who are to old or otherwise disabled to work but donÔÇÖt need a caretaker? Or is retirement going to be a privilege reserved for the truly decrepit. quote: That's why corrupt politicians are punished. That's why criminals are punished. For those of us who are driven to succeed for whatever reason there would be only one option, crime. Just about EVERY motivated individual would find themselves drawn towards crime as the only way to get ahead. I'm not talking about violent crime, but black market stuff or perhaps embezzling from the government, things that wouldnÔÇÖt twinge the coincidence too much. Some people would still succeed at getting ahead, and typical of socialism they would be punished. Only in this scenario because most of the motivated and intelligent individuals would be involved in some type of crime it would be virtually impossible to get rid of. quote: The incentive to go to school would be to satisfy demand. Without schooling, nobody would know how to produce anything, thus nobody's demand would be satisfied. In todayÔÇÖs culture and economy people go to school because they need the job training (or at least most people do, there are some pure academicians around, but itÔÇÖs not all that common). Without that kind of motivation a lot of people wouldnÔÇÖt go to school, letting others go instead. Imagine, if you will, what the average person (for whom college is really rather hard) will think if the choice is between getting a job (such as flipping burgers) that doesnÔÇÖt require any education but would support him just fine, or going to school and then getting a job that would be challenging, but that wouldnÔÇÖt provide better pay. It would fail, because most people are not altruists and would rather do whatÔÇÖs best for themselves (no education, no challenging job) then do what is best for society (get an education and a challenging job).

quote: That's weird. Each time I hear the sound of your name it makes me laugh. Stay of that nitrous man, too much is just too much.

Kill the bold, Dredd, it's a bloody eyesore

quote: Get shotgun. Kill greedy bastards. Feel good. Stress relief of the best kind

quote: That statement is completely unfounded and false: two thirds of start-ups fail in their first year, so it takes much more than a choice. Yea, it takes skill, luck, motivation, and a number of other things as well. If someone doesnt have them then they should get them or else go back to working at a burger joint. Either way I dont want to hear about their problems. quote: Two days ago I met a street person with the same qualifications. Which suggests that he could have succeeded if he truly was motivated to. Assuming, of course, sufficient intelligence. quote: How many times do I have to refer to the unsustainability of full employment in Laissez Faire before you stop ignoring it? And you have yet to adequately explain how socialism could accomplish total employment of all persons in the workforce. Some members of the so called work force (defined, if I remember, by age and able-bodiedness, not willingness to work) are total unsuitable for employment. They could be criminals, lunatics, fat lazy asses who enjoy leeching off of society, or whatever. quote: Class struggle has existed for thousands of years. Government is a focal point, but it's not the source. Bah! Class warfare (or struggle if you prefer) is like the war of the sexes, complete rubbish. Of course there is tension between people of different classes, but that hardly qualifies as warfare. quote: But it's not taken from you. Every worker receives according to the labour expended. Oh, I see, how could I have missed it, everyone works and everyone is paid by how much they work rather then such irrelevancies such as skill or demand. If we pay everyone receives what there labor is worth, paying everyone an equal amount calculated as the aggregate value of all of the labor done divided among the workers there would be no exploitation. Of course, that wouldnt leave any left over to give to those who dont work, and we would need a government filled with people who wouldnt exploit there positions of power, and we would need a working class that wouldnt engage in theft, fraudulent activities, or any of that nonsense. Furthermore, there wold be no reason to go to school because pay would be based on hours worked rather then how much skill was required and everyone who wanted a job would be guaranteed employment. What a delightful idea can I get my head out of this bucket of sand now, its giving me a crick in the neck. quote: I'm not familiar with every proposal, so I'll just give a few brief examples. Thank you. quote: It only works for the owner. Actually it works, period. quote: What elections are you talking about? I'm not referring to any particular election, but I do know that members of congress (you know, we should follow Englands example and call them MCs, it would save lot of typing) generally try to please there constituencies, social security is a great way to do that. quote: I hope Jaguar didn't eat lunch before reading that last sentence. It's not just about living conditions; it's also about what is taken from them in terms of their individual worth, and it's about freedom. Your right, but what I was trying to say was that these slaves didnt seem to be anything like traditional slaves. I later expounded on this in my rant. If we are trying to redefine slave as meaning someone who works for someone else then it isnt necessarily bad. Trying to make this point like this was probably a mistake. quote: Wrong. Employing power in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the worlds idea's on what is right and fair leads your country to isolation and inevitable destruction. True, but more power you have less you have to worry about what other people think. quote: Me too, I just don't want it to be at the expense of my fellow citizens who's well being I am somehow compelled to care about. Must be that socialist brainwashing May I point out that EVERYONE has had a considerable increase in their standard of living over the past few hundred years of capitalism. Poor people, rich people, even bums are better off then they were a few hundred years ago. quote: A mugging is a one-time hit-and-run. Wage confiscation is ongoing without end. It was a bloody EXAMPLE, we can substitute a protection racket for a mugging if you like, or even running blackmail, if you like. If someone is running a protection racket that you have to pay do you claim you are being enslaved by them? I should hope not! quote: In the USA, once the poor figure out (if they haven't already) that they can vote to tax the rich to confiscatory levels, they will never go back to any other way of life. Exactly true, this is what I have been going on about with mob rule. The poor use there numbers to steal from the rich and then consolidate themselves by saying its what the rich owes them and that its moral.

quote: Why do you think government have to "force" people to do some stuff? The last time I checked the government existed to serve the people, not force them to adhere to some backwards morality where those who produce are punished and those who do not (or produce little) are rewarded. The next thing were going to have is judges ruling based on who can afford to loose more, or jails freeing prisoners because they are fundamentally good people. The government exists to serve the people. Impartially. Anything else is legalized insanity. [ 05-22-2002, 03:11: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote: I said that the rich are the slaves of the poor, not the other way around. [Rant] Right, enough about slaves already. If I were to listen to you people then everyone is someoneÔÇÖs slave. Either itÔÇÖs the rich that are enslaved by socialism, or itÔÇÖs the poor that are slaves to the rich, or everyone is a slave in some Machiavellian socialist machine. The truth of the matter is that slave is NOT the right word for any of it (except maybe some of the few examples of wage slavery that sill go on with illegal immigrants, but thatÔÇÖs a whole different issue). You use slave because of the negative stigma that is attached to it in an attempt to discredit the other sideÔÇÖs argument, itÔÇÖs a question begging euphemism and a LOGICAL FALLACY. In socialism, the poor STEAL from the rich, not enslave them. There is a difference, if someone mugs you, you donÔÇÖt moan about how the bastard enslaved you (at least I should hope you donÔÇÖt). Similarly, the rich exploit the poor in a capitalist system (or at least all the socialistsÔÇÖ claim they do). If your boss slaps irons on you and locks you in the basement so you canÔÇÖt quit you may moan about being enslaved, but until then SHUT UP ABOUT IT. Ok, letÔÇÖs go over this one more time, itÔÇÖs either ROBBERY or EXPLOITATION, not slavery. Think you can manage that? [/Rant] ThatÔÇÖs been building up for a while, can you tell? [ 05-22-2002, 02:57: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote: 1)Love, compassion, strength of character.....things you may not know about personally. Yes, and viciousness, cruelty, and all the other things that make life fun Seriously though, how does socialism help with strength of character? Love and compassion I can kind of see, but I donÔÇÖt think being a parasite (or a host, for that matter) builds a lot of character. quote: 3) While you don't care about the people that keep your streets clean....that clean acknowledges what you don't appreciate. Of course we care about people who keep the street clean, but because of what they do not who they are. Such jobs simply require warm bodies and a willingness to work for very little, a valuable trait to find in people. quote: Yeah we have power and look at the evil that is pulled to us. Power doesn't make right it makes a interesting bookmark in history. Power may not make right, but with enough power it doesnÔÇÖt matter. quote: Why....most real progressives do it for the belief they have.....you put a price tag on it and I wonder how much real talent we have lost by corporate interpretation. As far as putting a price tag on it goes, I rather like an increasing standard of living. Maybe this doesnÔÇÖt appeal to you, but in this anyway most people would agree with me. quote: And what meakes us weak? I mean, it's not by the size of the army you judge the power of a country, but by it's economical strength. Maybe not the way that you judge a country, but it is definitely a part of a countries power. What good is a strong economy if someone with a strong military can take it away? Furthermore, Canada doesnÔÇÖt seem to be going anywhere good economically. quote: What is your definition of human nature? Soback did a nice job of commenting on that here quote: A worker in capitalism is a slave to the feeding owner; reduced to a machine part designed to sacrifice individual labour to generate surplus value for the owner; the worker is chained to the demands of the class of owners regardless of how often the worker changes jobs. The worker's only way out is to become an owner, who must also oppress and exploit the worker. THATÔÇÖS THE WHOLE POINT! That is what makes capitalism work; the drive to become an owner. quote: In Athens the mob was essentially the ruling class, so that doesn't surprise me. And despite what the framers wanted the mob rules now as well. Maybe not as directly, but itÔÇÖs still very clear. Shortsighted politicians who have more interest in winning the next election then in the long-term wellbeing of this country allow themselves to become puppets of the mob. Socialism is a prime example, it wins reelections so it must be good. Go figure. quote: That analogy is inaccurate, because unlike Ancient Egypt, the educated and relatively high-paid workers of today are not the ones who are enslaving the poor and uneducated workers. The educated and highly paid workers are also slaves, albeit with more money. And what, pray tell, is the problem with this? It seams to me that the arguments against slavery generally rest on the horrible conditions that slaves are made to endure. If a ÔÇ£slaveÔÇØ is happy and lives a good life is it so bad? quote: Does anyone read anything that I link to? No, not really. If itÔÇÖs important, I reason that you will either paraphrase or quote the material in question, thatÔÇÖs what everyone else does.

quote: this morning, i see someone sneaking around my front yard. so i go out to question what the hell he is doing, and he hands me this flyer that says his company is going to be going around the neighborhood repainting the address numbers on the street curb, and for an extra $25 theyll paint an american flag next to it... Anyone who pays for that deserves what they get.

quote: "Failing to provide bilingual assistance". @#%$%@#$#@%$^@#$@#, if you don't know how to read, speak and write English, you have no business voting. Exactly Right! How can someone expect to understand American politics enough to make an educated vote if they canÔÇÖt even read the news.

Very true. Reminds me of a story I saw on the news a while ago. This guy has an accident and suffers some sort of brain damage and is little more then a vegetable. He stays in the hospital for a wile, but since he was doing well they allowed his sister (I think it was his sister, not that itÔÇÖs really important) to take care of him at home, a difficult job because he needed to be cared for entirely and so the government was paying her a considerable sum for taking care of him. As it happens, she did nothing of the sort. She simply collected the money and left him in the basement to rot in his own feces and develop some rather nasty sores.

quote: It's funny you say Canada is unsuccessful....all the posts that I've read from CanadianÔÇÖs have been for the most part insightful and compassionate. And I'm not sure but I haven't read or seen anything telling me we are being overrun by Canadian immigrants....that seems to be happening from our southern neighbors that got the short end of the economic stick... My understanding of the situation is that Canada is headed for economic disaster (such as with the overspending on social security) but hasnÔÇÖt actually had that disaster. None the less, businesses and doctors and such are leaving Canada to escape the oppressive taxes. As far as compassionate goes, as I have already covered, compassion is not necessary for a society to be successful. ItÔÇÖs nice, and if I had the choice I would rather live in a society that is compassionate, but Canada only partially qualifies. There doing there best to be nice to the incompetent and incapable members of there society, but at the same time shafting those who succeed (actually, if they keep spending the way they are there going to be shafting everyone, but thatÔÇÖs something else entirely). quote: So what is success....I think a society can have advancement, profit, accomplishment and value without it being at the expense of its neighbors and citizens. Of course you have to genuinely care about people in general to understand what I'm saying. I know of no such society, perhaps it will one day be developed, but I doubt it. The success of the few must always be supported on the backs of the many. There is not other way. As far as not genuinely caring about people, believe it or not I do. I care about my friends, my family, and myself. quote: Every socialism (including the 'communisms') have some common goals: reducing the effects of or bringing an end to class division, the facilitation of cooperative and/or collective associations, and the partial or full implementation of planned economics. Different socialisms have different proposals regarding what system should be formed and how it would come about. Communism is just the name of Marx's proposal, which is completely different from the popular conception of communism as 'big government owning everything'. Ok, so how do they work? quote: While today's representative democracy is far from truly democratic, it is actually more democratic than the direct democracy of Ancient Athens, because people who would have been regarded as slaves with no civil rights in ancient times have the right to vote and participate in modern times. So? I'm not arguing about whether there democracies and really I couldnÔÇÖt care less. quote: However, the truth is that the design of the model itself does not exclusively determine whether it's truly democratic or not: it's the social relations within the social structure, including relations between classes if any, that have the most influence on this factor. If you applied the current model of representative democracy to Ancient Athens nothing would have changed because women and slaves would still have been excluded. Really? Well, party of my point included such aspects as suffrage, but lets never mind that. My understanding of the situation was, as I have mentioned before, that Athens mad a series of bad choices because that is what was convenient for most of the voting population. Part of the reason the framers made the US a republic (and yes, it is a republic, stated quite clearly in article 4 section 4 of our constitution) was to lessen the effects of mob rule. Perhaps this would have made a difference in Athens, I donÔÇÖt really know, but that is not all we have to consider. While Athenian democracy is fine for a city, modern democracy is capable of handling a vast country. If we switch around you scenario and apply Athenian democracy to the US (or wherever) it would be an unmitigated disaster, and I donÔÇÖt think I need to explain why. It is in this that we can see how much democracy has evolved, it now grants suffrage to all citizens and is capable of operating a very large country. quote: With the knowledge of what Stalin did and how he managed to do it, people can revise and change the vision in order to address the issue. If it has been addressed properly, then a new Stalin would be unlikely. Much harder said then done. quote: It isn't cooperative if the worth of my labor is forcibly taken from me. Exactly

quote: And just as I stated in a post Earlier, the General welfare clause has been perverted by liberals and socialists in order to make their causes seem legal. When in fact the Federal Government was NEVER, EVER given the power to do what they are doing. No matter how much they wish it were otherwise. After examining of the article one section eight of the constitution (including the general welfare clause) I would have to say I agree. The general welfare clause seams to be direct at a much larger scale then individuals, perhaps even states. quote: In your opinion I am a slave, but I say you cling to outdated ideologies and others rationalize an exploitative and self destructive mentality....sorry but I don't plan on following you down that road....but we'll see.... How is capitalism self-destructive? It seams that, if we take Canada as an example (not to mention the various attempts at communism around the world), itÔÇÖs socialism thatÔÇÖs self-destructive. quote: Then that brings us back to the Darwinistic survival of the fittest. A society based on the enslavement of others because they are stronger and can do it is no different than a society based on the skills of the laborers who are more educated or employable and can command higher salaries. They enslaved didn't like, and the poor and uneducated don't, either. Fact: Some successful societies survive, unsuccessful ones donÔÇÖt. What could be simpler? There is no question that Egypt survived for a long time, and thus we can determine that it was successful, what more is there to say? Morality may figure into why a society is successful or not, but that is as far as it goes. The same is true of modern societies, success is the only applicable measure of a society, plane and simple. There have been no successful societies based on socialism and, as Jaguar as enumerated on time and time again, socialism is bad for the economy. I think its safe to say that economy far more then morality is important in the success of a society.