Steve Schacher Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 Egypt ruled for centuries on the backs of Hebrew slaves. Would that qualify as a viable society?
Epsilon 5 Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: Egypt ruled for centuries on the backs of Hebrew slaves. Would that qualify as a viable society?It is - considering the morals they had in that time. Today's moral wouldn't allow that. But technically, it is a viable society.
Menchise Posted May 20, 2002 Report Posted May 20, 2002 quote:That's why Hitler and Stalin came to power. Positive vision, disasterous results.That is why I said, "If the vision doesn't turn out right, then revise it, change it, and try again." quote:Those numbers were for an example and were not meant to be used as criteria for judging the viability of a society. I'm not sure if anyone could come up with a comprehensive model for this type of thing, but that does not negate the fact that successful societies are the ones that tend to last and unsuccessful societies tend to fail much sooner.There also comes a time when successful societies are no longer successful. quote:If you really wish to argue against this then why donÔÇÖt you suggest a better way of judging a societyÔÇÖs fitness rather then simply denouncing mine.Here is one that I just made up a few minutes ago... The health of a society depends on: 1. The support of the people. 2. The ability to cope with aggregate problems on a regular basis. 3. A drive towards a socially progressive direction. 4. The acceptance of change within its social structure, including its fundamental elements, in accordance with social progress. 5. Expression of relative solidarity with other societies. quote:Excellence, just what I was hoping to hear. You canÔÇÖt employ everyone between 15 and 65 because not all of them are willing to be employed.I have already responded to this point. quote:Furthermore, so long as the economy is run by businesses and such there are still going to be people who are laid off of work, or who have trouble finding a job, or whatever. Basically, the same problems in capitalism that cause unemployment will cause it in a socialist system. Unless youÔÇÖre suggesting communism, that is something else entirely.One of the points of socialism (and communism) is that 'businesses' don't run the economy. quote:I pretty much have to go with $ilk on this one, while the change may be for the better most of the time it isnÔÇÖt. Even with a proven system like capitalist democracy (for which there are a number of good models) we see numerous failed attempts and catastrophes, but with socialism for which there are no long term successes except in the mildest form and numerous failures what chance does it have. Its like fascism, an interesting idea but not something that pans out in the end.Only two types of socialism have been tried: Neo-Marxism (Chile in the '70s), and Marxism-Leninism. Some would also include National Socialism in that list, but I don't, because it was never really socialist in the first place. In the case of Chile, the US took every step to sabotage it.
Raven Posted May 20, 2002 Report Posted May 20, 2002 quote: Egypt ruled for centuries on the backs of Hebrew slaves. Would that qualify as a viable society? I have to go with Epsilon 5 and Menchise on this one, what constitutes a viable society changes over time. quote: Here is one that I just made up a few minutes ago... The health of a society depends on: 1. The support of the people. 2. The ability to cope with aggregate problems on a regular basis. 3. A drive towards a socially progressive direction. 4. The acceptance of change within its social structure, including its fundamental elements, in accordance with social progress. 5. Expression of relative solidarity with other societies. There are a few more things I could add, but I would say this is a pretty good model. quote: One of the points of socialism (and communism) is that 'businesses' don't run the economy. I know who runs the economy in a communism, but how does it work in a non-communist socialist system? quote: Only two types of socialism have been tried: Neo-Marxism (Chile in the '70s), and Marxism-Leninism. Some would also include National Socialism in that list, but I don't, because it was never really socialist in the first place. In the case of Chile, the US took every step to sabotage it. LetÔÇÖs look at the progression of a slightly different societal mechanism, democracy. We can see democracy in itÔÇÖs infancy in Athens, a good idea perhaps, but with plenty of problems. We see bits and pieces of democracy fit there ways into other governments (the example that comes to mind is the House of Commons from old England), until we finally end up with a government that calls itself a democracy but is VASTLY different from the original Athenian democracy. I'm not saying that socialism will take this course (and itÔÇÖs a rather disturbing thought that it might) but if a primarily socialist society is ever to come about it will likely hold as much in common with the modern idea of socialism as modern democracy holds with Athenian democracy. What does this mean for our debate? It means that socialism is in an infantile state and that, no matter how much capitalist governments dabble in socialism, it may well be hundreds if not thousands of years before a viable form of socialism is formed.
Guest $iLk Posted May 20, 2002 Report Posted May 20, 2002 quote:That is why I said, "If the vision doesn't turn out right, then revise it, change it, and try again."So when a new Stalin comes to power and murders millions of his own people, we just say "Oops" and try again?
Epsilon 5 Posted May 20, 2002 Report Posted May 20, 2002 quote:It means that socialism is in an infantile state and that, no matter how much capitalist governments dabble in socialism, it may well be hundreds if not thousands of years before a viable form of socialism is formed.Depends. With technology and an increasing population, everything goes exponentially faster. We would end up with a socialist country in a few years and I wouldn't be suprised. Humanity made more progress, changed more in it's last 1% of life that in the first 50%, or even more.
Steve Schacher Posted May 20, 2002 Report Posted May 20, 2002 quote:It is - considering the morals they had in that time. Today's moral wouldn't allow that. But technically, it is a viable society.You would have to define what you mean by "viable." If it means self-sustaining, then Egypt fails because it depended on the forced labor of others -- a situation that couldn't last forever. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. The problem is that the Jews were powerless to do anything about it. If it wasn't wrong then (if the morals of the time let it be acceptable), then why was there such an outcry to "Let my people go?" If what constitutes a viable society changes over time, then you would have to endorse slavery in the United States. If it was okay for Egypt, and it was okay for colonials at the time (until the 1850's), then we can't apply today's standards to slavery and say that reparations are due -- because the South had a viable society. On the other hand, if there are some absolutes of humanity that transcend time, then societies must be measured by them.
Lotharr Posted May 20, 2002 Author Report Posted May 20, 2002 quote: On the other hand, if there are some absolutes of humanity that transcend time, then societies must be measured by them. Roger that....
Guest Posted May 20, 2002 Report Posted May 20, 2002 I am going to try and explain some things here, and see if you guys get it. Canada on a wider scale and the US on a smaller scale, now punish success. The more money you make, the more you have to give. This in effect punishes those that create, and of course rewards those that do not, because that money goes from the producers to the NON producers. This makes the producer look at things in a whole new light. If I as a producer, see most of my money going to some person that sits and vegetates on a couch, drinks beer and says they have a disability. Why should I continue to produce when I can do the same thing? My lifestyle may suffer, may have to sell that mercedes and buy a Chevy, but so what? The producers will support me and I can fart around. Now, when enough producers decide to do that, what happens to those people that mooch off of them, through government handouts? They die!! The government, every time it adds a new social program, some ENTITLEMENT, it cuts it's own economical throat. THe higher the taxes, the less produced, the lower the taxes, the more is produced. There is a DIRECT relation here. Government policy effects the bottom line of companies and so of course effect the economic condition of that country as well. Canada has taxed the hell out of business, business are going international and ESCAPING Canada as fast as their little trucks and planes will carry them. Canada started their Universal Health care program, now, instead of some accountant saying no, you have a government Bureaucrat doing it. Also, Canada now has a shortage of good doctors, they are fleeing for the US, and continue to flow into the US. The Universal Healthcare program is also broke, If Canada does not figure out how to fix it, which in effect means back to PRIVATIZATION, they will be completley bankrupt within the decade. Throwing more money at it is NOT the solution, but that is what politicians do, throw money at a problem until the taxpayers scream no more, and then they blame the taxpayers for not being able to fix it. Interesting that. Now, let us do a little history from the US. In the 1800's, we had healthcare for everyone, every town had a doctor, he might deliver you, your kids and their kids, and it might cost you a bushel of wheat, a chicken or 2, maybe a couple of bucks if you had it. Doctors then decided that there was no way that they could live like that, so what the doctors did, was start charging thier patients a monthly stipend for ALL services. In other words, they might have 400 patients in a city, each patient paid the doctor say $5.00 a month, that was $2000 for the doctor and he could pay for just about anything and everything with that. This idea grew into what we now call Medical insurance. It went gangbusters, because soon you had huge insurance corporations, and it was less costly to have the doctors all in one place, in a clinic or a hospital and the patients came to them, Hospitals grew into specialties, heart, organ transplant, whatever was the most profitable for the company that owned the hospital. Demand was there, it was just a question of supply. Insurance rates were pretty steady, grew right along with the inflation rate. People became healthier and things were looking pretty darned good. You raised your price too high, people ran to the competition down the street whose insurance costs were lower, the market decided what was the best pricing for such things. THEN, the government jumped in, it was unfair that the poor didn't have insurance, even though most were never refused treatment of any sort. Private organizations had grown to take care of such things, church hospitals were some of the best around. BUT, the government decided that the elderly should have healthcare that they didn't have to worry about the costs of, so the government killed 2 birds with one stone, LOTS of votes from the elderly for the incumbents in government, and they got to control a piece of a major part of the economy. problem was, that the bureaucracy of doing such a thing made the costs for the government SKYROCKET, the insurance companies loved it, because they could charge whatever they wanted. Bureaucracies are infamous for just paying without looking. Then the government decides the costs are too much and toss price controls in there. All of a sudden, the government is deciding market price for insurance arbitrarily instead of the market deciding. Healthcare prices soar into the stratosphere uncontrollably. Just as they are doing now. I can barely afford healthcare, and that is saying quite a bit. If the government got out of the healtcare industry entirely, you would see healthcare cost come WAY down, because the rest of us who do pay for our insurance are the ones paying the difference, since the government has it's own price controls in place, and those costs HAVE to be paid by someone or those health insurance companies would go out of business. The government is the one that CAUSED the problem in the first place, Canada just did things a bit faster then the US has. If the US EVER went to universal healthcare controlled by the government, the same thing will happen, the US will go bankrupt due to the costs. Free market capitalism controlled costs through the free market and it worked well, then the government got involved, threw a little socialism in there and fried it. The government screams that healthcare costs are rising uncontrollably and that they have to take it over, when in fact they are the ones that caused the problem in the first place. I am a STRICT constitutionalist, I am a charter member of the constitutionalist party here in the US, I even helped write some of the platform. The freedoms guaranteed in the constitution are based on a free market capitalist society, without a free market, the constitution is just a piece of paper, and that is what it has become. Due to the fact that socialist type programs have been implemented by the federal government, the constitution is being ignored, NO WHERE in that document does it ALLOW the government ANY of the power it has now. If a state wants to implement universal helathcare, that is it's right, but the feds are not supposed to be involved. Socialism is destroying our free market economy, and destroying the constitution of the US as well, because the constitution of the United States and socialism are like oil and water, they DO NOT mix, one or the other has to go, and the constitution is not what should be tossed out. Socialism in ANY form, has never worked, will never work, and can never work. It is against human nature, and destroy that which it claims it wants to help. You can keep your socialism Menchise and Lotharr and EP5, because it is destroying this country and it's constitutional safeguards. I would rather be free and starve, then a slave and fed. I would rather be an individual then a cog in some socialist machine. You enjoy your chains, I choose to be FREE!!
Raven Posted May 20, 2002 Report Posted May 20, 2002 quote: You would have to define what you mean by "viable." If it means self-sustaining, then Egypt fails because it depended on the forced labor of others -- a situation that couldn't last forever. IÔÇÖve never seen anything that suggests a society could last forever, viability does not require self sustenance (you wonÔÇÖt find a single country today that is independent of the world market), Egypt was a viable society for a very long time, but times change. quote: If it wasn't wrong then (if the morals of the time let it be acceptable), then why was there such an outcry to "Let my people go?" The Jews thought it was wrong, the Egyptians didnÔÇÖt. quote: If what constitutes a viable society changes over time, then you would have to endorse slavery in the United States. If it was okay for Egypt, and it was okay for colonials at the time (until the 1850's), then we can't apply today's standards to slavery and say that reparations are due -- because the South had a viable society. Sure, then I endorse slavery. It was a hell of a lot more moral then the wage slavery that was going on in the north for some time and it is a hell of a lot more moral then modern sweatshops. Lotharr mentioned earlier that illegal aliens are brought into the US and then made to work in ghastly conditions until they are worthless as laborers. As far as reparations, that ridiculous, I can see giving an ex slave enough money to get started in life and call it reparations, but there are no ex slaves left, period. ItÔÇÖs the same damn thing with the Native Americans, we didnÔÇÖt take there land, we took there grandparents land, so why is the government giving them money? ItÔÇÖs all quite ridiculous. quote: On the other hand, if there are some absolutes of humanity that transcend time, then societies must be measured by them. Absolutes of humanity that transcend time, yea, one comes to mind; the stupidity of the people. When the mob has enough power to control the government itÔÇÖs a disaster, we saw it with the ancient Athenians and we are seeing it today. Athens fell because of a series of really bad choices that (typical of the mob) failed to take into account long-term affects. The modern equivalent is socialism, look at Canada and JaguarÔÇÖs lovely explanation of what is happening there. The same thing is happening in America, not understanding (or not caring about) the big picture, people vote for politicians that do the most for them, whether this means federal funding for projects in there community, welfare, or clearly unconstitutional gun control laws. quote: Due to the fact that socialist type programs have been implemented by the federal government, the constitution is being ignored, NO WHERE in that document does it ALLOW the government ANY of the power it has now. If a state wants to implement universal helathcare, that is it's right, but the feds are not supposed to be involved. I agree with the rest of your argument, but this statement is not exactly true. If you recall the general welfare clause that everyone was throwing around a while ago it can be interpreted to allow the federal government to do a lot of things, this being on of them. I imagine that the framers would have been aghast to see what has been done to the constitution, but it is constitutional as far as we judge such things these days.
Guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Posted May 21, 2002 quote: I agree with the rest of your argument, but this statement is not exactly true. If you recall the general welfare clause that everyone was throwing around a while ago it can be interpreted to allow the federal government to do a lot of things, this being on of them. I imagine that the framers would have been aghast to see what has been done to the constitution, but it is constitutional as far as we judge such things these days. 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. The general welfare clause applied to the states, not individual citizens. If the citizens of this country would actually STUDY the federalist papers, the anti federalist papers, and the works by our other founding fathers, they would be so angry that the government would back off real quick. But we have a bunch of sheep in this country, and it is costing me MY freedom and that just cannot be borne. It is my job to educate as many people as possible on the TRUE meaning of the constitution, so that maybe, just maybe, I can get some of my freedoms back. The problem is, that once a freedom is gone, it is REAL hard to get back, if not impossible.
Lotharr Posted May 21, 2002 Author Report Posted May 21, 2002 Jag I think you and a lot of other people are already slaves....but not for the reasons you think. I have started reading the Federalist papers and will continue. And in my opinion one of the reasons health care costs are so high is because the gluttonous nature of our culture calls for the vast intake of crap food and....well....hell you name it bigger is better right? 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....
Steve Schacher Posted May 21, 2002 Report Posted May 21, 2002 quote:The Jews thought it was wrong, the Egyptians didn’t.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. The slaves eventually overthrew their captors. Will the poor do the same to the rich? quote:the general welfare clauseThe general welfare clause has the power it has because nobody understands what the Ninth Amendment means, including most legal scholars. The Ninth Amendment was meant to say that the rights listed in the Constitution were not the only rights retained by the people. They didn't want the list of enumerated rights to be construed as the only rights granted to the people. The Tenth Amendment says that the powers granted to the Federal government are the only powers granted to the Federal government, everything else belonging to the states and the people. Taken together, they supercede the general welfare clause since many actions taken by the Federal government in the name of general welfare would violate Ninth Amendment rights, if anyone can agree on what they are. quote:health care costsA big factor in high health care costs is that many poor and undocumented people are using the Emergency Room as their primary care facility. [ 05-20-2002, 21:05: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]
Raven Posted May 21, 2002 Report Posted May 21, 2002 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.
Lotharr Posted May 21, 2002 Author Report Posted May 21, 2002 quote: 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), it’s socialism that’s self-destructive. Because in the end you value people for their ability to produce and consume when a human is capable of so much more. Right now because we have so much of the world's market we can waste people....we can and do write them off. This will not last. You are blinded by an ego grown from a superior world position....but ourselves, like many other civilizations, will realize this mistake born of arrogance will undo us...but hopefully not before it is too late. It's funny you say Canada is unsuccessful....all the posts that I've read from Canadian’s 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... 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. [ 05-21-2002, 09:27: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Menchise Posted May 21, 2002 Report Posted May 21, 2002 quote:I know who runs the economy in a communism, but how does it work in a non- communist socialist system?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'. quote:LetÔÇÖs look at the progression of a slightly different societal mechanism, democracy. We can see democracy in itÔÇÖs infancy in Athens, a good idea perhaps, but with plenty of problems. We see bits and pieces of democracy fit there ways into other governments (the example that comes to mind is the House of Commons from old England), until we finally end up with a government that calls itself a democracy but is VASTLY different from the original Athenian democracy.Neither the Athenian model nor the modern parliamentary model are truly democratic: Athens had direct voting and direct participation in decision making for the elite, and the modern parliamentary model has direct voting and participation in decision making for elected representatives who are directly or indirectly nominated by the elite (unless the political party is radical). 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. 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. quote:So when a new Stalin comes to power and murders millions of his own people, we just say "Oops" and try again?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. I'll respond to the rest of the posts later.
Guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Posted May 21, 2002 The only class warfare we have in this country comes from Democrats stating that the rich do not pay their fair share, well, Sorry. I disagree. To be rich, you must produce a product that everyone wants, you cannot put a gun to someones head and say, "you must buy this product or else". The democrats in this country have been able to set the non producers against the producers, and they have been able to increase the number of nonproducers and those on the government teat in order to increase their power base. The Democrats have done their very best to set one group of people against the other, and have done it for the last 75 years. Class warfare is a political fiction, not an economic one. You are NEVER stuck in a socioeconomic niche if you choose not to be, in a capitalist society. I will state it again, I have a high school diploma, no college, I have been in the military, but so can most other people. The military requires nothing more then certain physical abilities and a high school education. I started in this economy at 1.85 an hour and have increased my income to a point where my wife stays home with the children, I own my own house, I am able to homeschool my children, and am involved in my community and of course politics and this board. EVERYONE has this same opportunity in a capitalist society, and to say they can't is to say that they are somehow less able to do what I have done. I say that you sell those people short. People don't need government, they CAN be self sufficient, and I think that it is unfair and cruel to support people with others people money when you have a gun to the head of those that have the money. Class warfare in this country was begun by politicians wanting more political power, without those people, this country would not be in the trouble it is in, nor would the constitution be ignored.
Steve Schacher Posted May 21, 2002 Report Posted May 21, 2002 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.To bring my reasoning full-circle, Socialism is the unskilled enslaving the skilled by confiscating the worth of their labor. It isn't cooperative if the worth of my labor is forcibly taken from me.
Raven Posted May 21, 2002 Report Posted May 21, 2002 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
CommanderJohnson Posted May 21, 2002 Report Posted May 21, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Because in the end you value people for their ability to produce and consume when a human is capable of so much more. Right now because we have so much of the world's market we can waste people....we can and do write them off. This will not last. You are blinded by an ego grown from a superior world position....but ourselves, like many other civilizations, will realize this mistake born of arrogance will undo us...but hopefully not before it is too late. Ok, lets see the problems with your argumentation. I'd love to hear the answers to the questions. (1) Uhh, ok, what is this "more" that a human is capable of? (2) How is EVERYONE going to be capable of this "more" in a socialist society? (3) What should humans be valued by, the fact they are humans? That point is already established, but not everyone IS equally important. Some people have different genetic material, and thus are STRONGER, FASTER, SMARTER, NICER, etc than others. Some homeless person on the street or some janitor is not as important as a doctor who is saving my life. Credit goes where credit is due, and that's the benefit of a capitalist society. Another benefit of capitalism is people can achieve their potential. They rise in the social/job hiearchy until their skills don't let them rise any more. The more helpful and useful jobs are recognized more through funds, and the less important are given less money. If you want more money, you move to the maximum of your abilities. In a socialist society, people are rewarded for not working hard, and people are punished for working to the best of their abilities. quote:It's funny you say Canada is unsuccessful....all the posts that I've read from Canadian’s 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...Canada has close to NO POWER. If you look at most major international relations, Canada is not major. No one really cares about them, that's because they are weak. The US is strong, and we're capitalist (although the socialist/leftist ideals are really hurting us) 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. How can a society have "advancement, profit, accomplishment, and value" with a socialist system? No one has yet been able to explain a REAL WORLD SCENARIO where a socialist society does all of those things. It seems sorta counter-intuitive since there will never be advancement when the people who work the hardest have the most taken away from them to help the poor ones. People will just stop working as hard and fall just below the average level of income so they get helped out and dont need to work. I think you need to be leftist/liberal/idealist in order to "understand what you are saying". I care about people, but I don't believe that every person is equal to every other person, and every person has equal rights to everything no matter how hard they work or what genetic material they were born with. I think you need to understand LOGIC, FAIRNESS, and JUSTICE to get what i'm saying. In a socialist society, you are recognizing people equally for whatever they do, no matter how hard they work or IF THEY WORK. The government is taking things *earned* from one person and *giving* them to everyone else. Think "natural instinct". If there was no government, and you chopped down a tree, you wouldn't expect someone to walk up and take it away from you. Now, you probably wouldn't disagree with CHOOSING to give the wood from the tree to some old dying woman who needs to build a house, but you'd disagree with the majority of your community coming up and FORCING you to give it to the old woman. Socialism is STEALING/THEFT by the government.
Lotharr Posted May 22, 2002 Author Report Posted May 22, 2002 1)Love, compassion, strength of character.....things you may not know about personally. 2) Not every single person.....but at least they would have a fighting chance. 3) While you don't care about the people that keep your streets clean....that clean acknowledges what you don't appreciate. Do you know what it means to have a foundation? People do the best they can but the janitor who takes disease from me has no more honor then the man who develops the next OS. quote:Canada has close to NO POWER. If you look at most major international relations, Canada is not major. No one really cares about them, that's because they are weak. The US is strong, and we're capitalist (although the socialist/leftist ideals are really hurting us) 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. quote:How can a society have "advancement, profit, accomplishment, and value" with a socialist system? No one has yet been able to explain a REAL WORLD SCENARIO where a socialist society does all of those things. It seems sorta counter-intuitive since there will never be advancement when the people who work the hardest have the most taken away from them to help the poor ones. People will just stop working as hard and fall just below the average level of income so they get helped out and dont need to work. 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. If I chopped trees so well I doubt I'd care.
Epsilon 5 Posted May 22, 2002 Report Posted May 22, 2002 quote:Canada has close to NO POWER. If you look at most major international relations, Canada is not major. No one really cares about them, that's because they are weak.How can you say this? Please remember that Canada is in the G7, meaning that we are one of the world's most powerful economic forces. I can't remember the rank thought. Don't get a complex of superiority. 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.
Menchise Posted May 22, 2002 Report Posted May 22, 2002 I think I'm gonna be here a while. I'm going to ignore the posts about Canada and state welfare because I have already responded to that broken record. quote:Socialism in ANY form, has never worked, will never work, and can never work. It is against human nature, and destroy that which it claims it wants to help.What is your definition of human nature? quote:I would rather be free and starve, then a slave and fed. I would rather be an individual then a cog in some socialist machine. You enjoy your chains, I choose to be FREE!!That argument is full of contradictions. 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. quote:Absolutes of humanity that transcend time, yea, one comes to mind; the stupidity of the people. When the mob has enough power to control the government itÔÇÖs a disaster, we saw it with the ancient Athenians and we are seeing it today.In Athens the mob was essentially the ruling class, so that doesn't surprise me. 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.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. quote:How is capitalism self-destructive?Does anyone read anything that I link to? [ 05-22-2002, 00:31: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Raven Posted May 22, 2002 Report Posted May 22, 2002 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.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now