Progressive thought

[Mountain Lion]

Hi :)

Personally, I prefer not to engage in political discussions in non academic setting, because the level of analysis usually lacks the necessary quality, but I would like to recommend an excellent source related to some of the discussions on this forum: Another World Is Possible: Globalization and Anti-Capitalism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)by David McNALLY (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Unfortunately it is not available online as a free copy, but you might be able to find it in the library. I do have a copy myself and it's an excellent investment for anyone interested in politics, history, sociology, economics and numerous other subject related to the topic of political governance. There is also an excellent essay I would recommend by Charles Tillly which you can find here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. If you find it interesting, do check out that particular book.

I am sure everyone aware of the existence of online archives with numerous works of classics on socialist and social democratic thought among other subjects. Don't read the reviews of the classical works, but try to engage them yourself. Marx's analysis of capitalism was not perfect but it does provide an insight into a form of historical analysis that is usually not encouraged in the west. Prejudiced attitudes formed because of the exposure to incomplete original sources or hearsay prevents people from opening themselves to new experiences and higher order of knowledge.


P.S. By the way, I have no affiliation with that particular host for the essay I linked above. I knew that it was available in electronic form and simply selected the first search result. But it appears that they host a number of interesting sources that might be of value to people with interests in political and social thought :)

[prometheus]

Hi :)


I am sure everyone aware of the existence of online archives with numerous works of classics on socialist and social democratic thought among other subjects. Don't read the reviews of the classical works, but try to engage them yourself. Marx's analysis of capitalism was not perfect but it does provide an insight into a form of historical analysis that is usually not encouraged in the west. Prejudiced attitudes formed because of the exposure to incomplete original sources or hearsay prevents people from opening

There are no "prejudiced attitudes" about socialism. :rolleyes: The largest country in the world, got suckered into trying it and, many many (60,000,000ish) were killed and economically it was a COMPLETE UTTER failure. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jesus, just because John Lenin wrote a song about "how good it was" doesn't make it true.

[blueback]

All government has to find a balance. That balance is how much of the money you earn should be taken away from you and used by the government.

A capitalist democracy takes a smaller percentage of what you earn then a socialist democracy which takes a smaller percentage then a communist authoritarian government.

History has proven that economies grow better when people are allowed to keep their money and use it as they see fit then when the government takes all their money and uses it as it sees fit.

[Bossy Mom]

I find it so frustrating when socialism is thrown up to me again and again as though it is a new idea. The failures of pure socialism are profound and the only way it can be fully enforced is through the brute force of government. I have a copy of "The Black Book of Communism" and it relates the failures of "pure socialism" in an objective and truthful manner. So many people want to ignore the Stalins, the Mao Tse Tungs, the Pol Pots -- like they never existed. This is all so simple. I just want the government out of my life -- it's my life and no one else's. This socialism stuff puts me in a very bad mood.

I once read "Das Kapital," and wondered how a rational and reasoning person could accept the tenets of socialism. I just don't get it! To claim such authority over others must be a power trip!

[Lights]

I've come to the conclusion that it isn't the type of government that really matters, but the attitudes and prejudices of the people. Pure socialism doesn't work because it is prejudiced toward the upper class and pure capitalism doesn't work because it is prejudiced toward the lower class. I believe America is a great country because it is capitalistic, but also because it has taken great strides to protect its poor and underprivileged. After reading some of the bigoted, and outright shameful views of purely capitalistic minded folks on this forum toward the poor, I am very grateful that such steps are taken. The poor in America are often seen as lazy, uneducated, criminal, etc. when most of the time that just isn't the case. It's an oversimplification that some truly ignorant people make in order to justify their tainted views.

For that reason alone, I am grateful for progressive thought which allows for better schools and other services which give the poor in this country an opportunity to compete. But I can tell that even in our system, the prejudices towards women, races, creeds, etc. are till strong and I believe it is in fighting that ignorance that America can make the most progress.

[prometheus]

After reading some of the bigoted, and outright shameful views of purely capitalistic minded folks on this forum toward the poor, I am very grateful that such steps are taken. The poor in America are often seen as lazy, uneducated, criminal, etc. when most of the time that just isn't the case. It's an oversimplification that some truly ignorant people make in order to justify their tainted views.


The only time I have ever said anything like that was in reference to the poor who take every handout they can get and have no intention of ever stopping.

Hell, there are some geniuses who live below the poverty level, but aint sucking at the government tit. I'm one of them.

[Lights]

The only time I have ever said anything like that was in reference to the poor who take every handout they can get and have no intention of ever stopping.

Hell, there are some geniuses who live below the poverty level, but aint sucking at the government tit. I'm one of them.

Not everything is about you prometheus. :rolleyes:

[blueback]

Well, pure capitalism doesn't work. It can't.

A purely market driven economy would quickly lead to political, economic and social collapse. The market is simply too good at evolving businessmen. Rather quickly, one of them gains an advantage over the others and then uses their position of power to squash their competition. No competition, no market, it is self-defeating.

The market has to be checked by laws that force businessmen to stay within limits. If they aren't checked, they will violate every limit they possibly can. You can't seperate wealth and power, so wherever you find one you will inevitably find the other, they are drawn together like two poles of a magnet.

On the other hand, pure socialism doesn't work. It can't.

A purely socialist economy will quickly fail because it is impossible for a very small group of people to determine realistic market forces for a very large group of people.

People will always be as lazy, selfish and short-sighted as possible. A socialist system promises everyone the same thing, but can't manage to squeeze the same amount of work out of everyone, which means that people gradually stop working.

They fail in opposite directions. Pure capitalism fails because people work too hard, accumulate too much money and power, and subjugate everyone else. Pure socialism fails because people stop working, which means no one has any money or power, and it's every man for himself.

The answer is somewhere in between, but individuals will always disagree on where the proper balancing point is.

[Lights]

Well, pure capitalism doesn't work. It can't.

A purely market driven economy would quickly lead to political, economic and social collapse. The market is simply too good at evolving businessmen. Rather quickly, one of them gains an advantage over the others and then uses their position of power to squash their competition. No competition, no market, it is self-defeating.

The market has to be checked by laws that force businessmen to stay within limits. If they aren't checked, they will violate every limit they possibly can. You can't seperate wealth and power, so wherever you find one you will inevitably find the other, they are drawn together like two poles of a magnet.

On the other hand, pure socialism doesn't work. It can't.

A purely socialist economy will quickly fail because it is impossible for a very small group of people to determine realistic market forces for a very large group of people.

People will always be as lazy, selfish and short-sighted as possible. A socialist system promises everyone the same thing, but can't manage to squeeze the same amount of work out of everyone, which means that people gradually stop working.

They fail in opposite directions. Pure capitalism fails because people work too hard, accumulate too much money and power, and subjugate everyone else. Pure socialism fails because people stop working, which means no one has any money or power, and it's every man for himself.

The answer is somewhere in between, but individuals will always disagree on where the proper balancing point is.

Well put. But I think it is also situational. There isn't a best fit, perfect system that would work all the time. Times and people change, and the system needs to be able to adapt with them. At one point in time, a slightly more capitalistic system would be needed. An another time a slightly more socialistic system would be needed. Simply put, a system that can't evolve will eventually stagnate and fall apart.

[prometheus]

Well, pure capitalism doesn't work. It can't.

A purely market driven economy would quickly lead to political, economic and social collapse. The market is simply too good at evolving businessmen. Rather quickly, one of them gains an advantage over the others and then uses their position of power to squash their competition. No competition, no market, it is self-defeating.

The market has to be checked by laws that force businessmen to stay within limits. If they aren't checked, they will violate every limit they possibly can. You can't seperate wealth and power, so wherever you find one you will inevitably find the other, they are drawn together like two poles of a magnet.

On the other hand, pure socialism doesn't work. It can't.

A purely socialist economy will quickly fail because it is impossible for a very small group of people to determine realistic market forces for a very large group of people.

People will always be as lazy, selfish and short-sighted as possible. A socialist system promises everyone the same thing, but can't manage to squeeze the same amount of work out of everyone, which means that people gradually stop working.

They fail in opposite directions. Pure capitalism fails because people work too hard, accumulate too much money and power, and subjugate everyone else. Pure socialism fails because people stop working, which means no one has any money or power, and it's every man for himself.

The answer is somewhere in between, but individuals will always disagree on where the proper balancing point is.

If the business men can't gain an unfair advantage by using corrupt politicians to quash competition, your whole monopoly argument falls apart. If the monopoly starts gouging the consumer another competitor will be created by a bright individual who can produce the good(s) cheaper. If no one can produce the good(s) cheaper the monopoly is actually good for the consumer.

Oh Lights, I ran across this quote looking for his other one, for the pirate thread. I thought you'd like it.

Instead of arguing that one race or group was superior to another, Mencken believed that every community — whether the community of train porters, blacks, newspapermen, or artists — produced a few people of clear superiority. He considered groupings on a par with hierarchies, which led to a kind of natural elitism and natural aristocracy. "Superior" individuals, in Mencken's view, were those wrongly oppressed and disdained by their own communities, but nevertheless distinguished by their will and personal achievement — not by race or birth. Of course, based on his heritage, achievement, and work ethic, Mencken considered himself a member of this group.

Sounds like an INTJ's thinking to me.
Also, since you were playing around with calling your self an Anarcho-Communist. I think I might choose to called an Agorist (a Mencken term).

[Mountain Lion]

:) Well, humanity is yet to observe a failure of a social Democratic system. Which is not to say that it wouldn't happen, considering the ruthlessness of the overpriveleged minority (majority of which is located in North America and Europe and includes local working class). To call USSR and PRC socialist and communist would be a mistake. Which is very common with people who do not have extensive background in political science. To put the most positive spin on the historical developments in those two countries, the population there was engaged in a social experiment under the leadership of people who claimed loyalty to the socialist ideals. However, even those leaders have never claimed to have built communism or socialism. It was only step for them.

Anyone who spent time actually studying the revolutions that occurred in those countries and their results would be hard pressed to classify the consequent regimes as socialist or communist.

Arguments against socialist thought based on the failure of socialism is very common, as I said. It's mostly a product of disinformation and lack of hands on research and exposure to socialist thought. Another popular trap for an average citizen is an argument based on human nature as defined by common sense. Well, common sense usually has a purpose and that's to create a consensus. Consensus for whom you might ask. Well, who might benefit from letting people believe that they are naturally selfish and violent? The fact is that there is no scientific research that claims to define human nature. The most common thread that unites most human beings is a desire to survive and procreate. How we do it is up to us and to the choices we make.


I do not wish to continue because my rhetoric would lack sophistication of much more profound writers who have published numerous well researched works analyzing the potential of a social democratic system and exposing the truth of capitalism. For those who perceive capitalism as an ideal system to manage market relations, I would suggest to consider the fact that our current economic and monetary systems are not something natural. They are artificial. They've been invented and realized. Again, by whom and why? :)

For those who are passionate in their arguments against socialist thought, it would be of a great benefit to you to go straight to the source of the subject you are arguing against in order to produce an academic quality argument that supports capitalist regime, because there is yet one to be developed. May I suggest works of Nietzsche, Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci to build a foundation for yourself leading to modern day critical theory or Frankfurt School of Thought and following that, if you are still willing, you will have a background necessary for you to start tearing apart all their "convoluted" democratic ideas :)

[Lights]

If the business men can't gain an unfair advantage by using corrupt politicians to quash competition, your whole monopoly argument falls apart. If the monopoly starts gouging the consumer another competitor will be created by a bright individual who can produce the good(s) cheaper. If no one can produce the good(s) cheaper the monopoly is actually good for the consumer.

Oh Lights, I ran across this quote looking for his other one, for the pirate thread. I thought you'd like it.


Sounds like an INTJ's thinking to me.
Also, since you were playing around with calling your self an Anarcho-Communist. I think I might choose to called an Agorist (a Mencken term).

You wishful thinking never ceases to amaze me Prometheus. And I was only joking about being an anarcho-commie.

:) Well, humanity is yet to observe a failure of a social Democratic system.

The Iroquois Nation might be considered a failed social democracy. Many consider it to be the first democracy in America. It even came with advanced ideas, such as equal status for women. Considering it took America to the 20th century to get that far, it's a notable achievement. Benjamin Franklin, among a few other framers of the Constitution, associated with and studied the Iroquois, and many of the ideas found in the Constitution are extraordinarily similar to those found with the Iroquois. I'd say it is foolish to assume they didn't influence the creation of our Constitutional Republic.

[Mountain Lion]

That's a good point about Iroquois :) Though their impact on Canadian and US state systems is a speculation only since there is a lack of factual evidence supporting that claim. However, Marx and many other progressive thinkers have been inspired by aboriginal nations, their ways of self-government and intertribe relations.

[prometheus]

:) Well, humanity is yet to observe a failure of a social Democratic system. Which is not to say that it wouldn't happen, considering the ruthlessness of the overpriveleged minority (majority of which is located in North America and Europe and includes local working class). To call USSR and PRC socialist and communist would be a mistake. Which is very common with people who do not have extensive background in political science. To put the most positive spin on the historical developments in those two countries, the population there was engaged in a social experiment under the leadership of people who claimed loyalty to the socialist ideals. However, even those leaders have never claimed to have built communism or socialism. It was only step for them.

Anyone who spent time actually studying the revolutions that occurred in those countries and their results would be hard pressed to classify the consequent regimes as socialist or communist.

Arguments against socialist thought based on the failure of socialism is very common, as I said. It's mostly a product of disinformation and lack of hands on research and exposure to socialist thought. Another popular trap for an average citizen is an argument based on human nature as defined by common sense. Well, common sense usually has a purpose and that's to create a consensus. Consensus for whom you might ask. Well, who might benefit from letting people believe that they are naturally selfish and violent? The fact is that there is no scientific research that claims to define human nature. The most common thread that unites most human beings is a desire to survive and procreate. How we do it is up to us and to the choices we make.


I do not wish to continue because my rhetoric would lack sophistication of much more profound writers who have published numerous well researched works analyzing the potential of a social democratic system and exposing the truth of capitalism. For those who perceive capitalism as an ideal system to manage market relations, I would suggest to consider the fact that our current economic and monetary systems are not something natural. They are artificial. They've been invented and realized. Again, by whom and why? :)

For those who are passionate in their arguments against socialist thought, it would be of a great benefit to you to go straight to the source of the subject you are arguing against in order to produce an academic quality argument that supports capitalist regime, because there is yet one to be developed. May I suggest works of Nietzsche, Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci to build a foundation for yourself leading to modern day critical theory or Frankfurt School of Thought and following that, if you are still willing, you will have a background necessary for you to start tearing apart all their "convoluted" democratic ideas :)

I'm currently researching "Social Democracy" which is very very difficult since it is so young and has split at least 4 times and so far includes one school that uses it as a means to bring about full socialism. One that uses it as a wealth redistribution scheme (reminding me of Zimbabwe) to control industries, and bring about a welfare state. What exactly do you mean by social democracy. Stick with taxes, production, property, and welfare handouts. I haven't see anyone here (except Thod) who thinks civil rights are a bad thing.

[Bossy Mom]

The only time I have ever said anything like that was in reference to the poor who take every handout they can get and have no intention of ever stopping.

Hell, there are some geniuses who live below the poverty level, but aint sucking at the government tit. I'm one of them.

I believe that the cause of most of the poverty in this country (the US) is behavioral. There is so much opportunity with education, charities, etc., but illegitimacy and illiteracy is high and growing. My daughter told me that today at her high school she was amazed that so many students didn't understand the political symbols of the donkey and the elephant. The illiteracy in this country is appalling!

[prometheus]

I believe that the cause of most of the poverty in this country (the US) is behavioral. There is so much opportunity with education, charities, etc., but illegitimacy and illiteracy is high and growing. My daughter told me that today at her high school she was amazed that so many students didn't understand the political symbols of the donkey and the elephant. The illiteracy in this country is appalling!

The Publik school system is socialism in action. I home school and am shocked that you don't.

[Lights]

I'm currently researching "Social Democracy" which is very very difficult since it is so young and has split at least 4 times and so far includes one school that uses it as a means to bring about full socialism. One that uses it as a wealth redistribution scheme (reminding me of Zimbabwe) to control industries, and bring about a welfare state. What exactly do you mean by social democracy. Stick with taxes, production, property, and welfare handouts. I haven't see anyone here (except Thod) who thinks civil rights are a bad thing.

Civil rights are a good thing. You earn civil rights by being a good citizen. However, the natural rights you argue for, mostly the one regarding the right to property, are not always so great. They are a religious concept.

[blueback]

If the business men can't gain an unfair advantage by using corrupt politicians to quash competition, your whole monopoly argument falls apart.


Yeah, that was why I included that stuff (you must not have read) about laws and power.


If the monopoly starts gouging the consumer another competitor will be created by a bright individual who can produce the good(s) cheaper. If no one can produce the good(s) cheaper the monopoly is actually good for the consumer.


Yeah, cuz Microsoft Windows is losing so much market share.

That will only work if the market is regulated and there are strong laws to keep the powerful monopoly in line. Thus, we come full circle.

But, for you edification, I'll go back to basic economics. The monopoly is a situation which is produced by the market. It isn't something an evil businessman wakes up one morning and decides to do, it happens naturally when certain lines cross. Every businessman in a market economy will charge whatever the market will bear, that is pretty much the definition of a market economy.

Now, there are several different kinds of monopolies. For example, it doesn't make any sense for multiple companies to tear up the streets installing their own natural gas lines, so one company is granted a legal monopoly and is heavily regulated by the local government. Also, there are some things that only one person can produce (patents) so the government grants that person a legal monopoly to charge whatever they can for a certain amount of time. It is basically a reward for innovation.

Anywho, I digress. When competition disappears, the one company that remains is suddenly able to charge far more then their product or service is worth. However, even they are still regulated by the market. They will charge whatever maximizes their profit whether it is good or bad for the nation in general. The exhorbitant prices charged by a monopoly create a lot of waste in the economy as a whole. If too many monopolies are allowed, the economy will collapse.

Because a monopoly makes so much more money then a company that has to waste time and resources competing, everyone wants to own one. Because everyone owning one is bad, someone has to arbitrarily determine how much of a monopoly will encourage good businessmen without letting them get so much power that they accidentally shut down the market.

Sometimes a market is so big that a company can amass quite a lot of money without actually becoming a monopoly and setting off any alarms. Then, they use that money to get the laws regulating their particular market changed so that they can grow bigger without setting off any of the alarms that used to be there. The cycle continues. . .

[prometheus]

Civil rights are a good thing. You earn civil rights by being a good citizen. However, the natural rights you argue for, mostly the one regarding the right to property, are not always so great. They are a religious concept.

I DON'T "EARN" MY RIGHTS, THEY ARE MY BIRTH RIGHT. So you think if someone told you you had no right to screw men, that makes it right? They gotts a book saying it's not right, and everything.

If Rights aren't natural every single thing in our lives are in jeopardy. Would you bow down and pay an air tax? Or send you boytoy to the gallows because someone told you to?





prometheus added to this post, 2 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Yeah, that was why I included that stuff (you must not have read) about laws and power.

Yeah, cuz Microsoft Windows is losing so much market share.



My next box will be Linux. I had dual boot Linux on this laptop for awhile......... ........................... ...................

[Lights]

I DON'T "EARN" MY RIGHTS, THEY ARE MY BIRTH RIGHT. So you think if someone told you you had no right to screw men, that makes it right? They gotts a book saying it's not right, and everything.

If Rights aren't natural every single thing in our lives are in jeopardy. Would you bow down and pay an air tax? Or send you boytoy to the gallows because someone told you to?

Dude, I'm not arguing against your religious beliefs. I'm just saying that's all they are. I don't believe in Christian's natural rights either. And just so you know, you are jumping into a good ol' consequences of belief fallacy right there with that whole, "we gotta have natural rights or everything will fall apart" argument. I thought we were past using fallacies in our arguments. Civil rights are just fine, and one day people of different sexual orientations will have equal protection under the law because we earned it. I don't need to proclaim some natural right to screw as you seem to be insinuating.

And geez dude. Why you so interested in my sexual orientation? I'm sorry, but you just aren't my type. ;D

[Bossy Mom]

The Publik school system is socialism in action. I home school and am shocked that you don't.

If I could be a stay-home mom, I would home-school. Unfortunately, I have to work to financially support my daughter and also make sure she has good medical insurance (she's a liver transplant recipient). I'm a widow. To show you how important it is that she have good medical insurance, she will be having a double-balloon endoscopy on Feb. 13 due to unexplained low hemoglobin.

[Mountain Lion]

The Publik school system is socialism in action. I home school and am shocked that you don't.

So, you haven't considered that perhaps the public school system in US is actually capitalism in action? :) Capitalism drives unlimited accumulation and competition for resources hence your war in Iraq which consumes a lot of money taken away from public welfare. No, not probable? :)

Well, even though far from ideal, Scandinavian countries and Switzerland do serve as modern day social democracies. Ideally it would be a hybrid economy with private property, but limited copyrights if any at all. More importantly, the government would be truly representative of the people it serves. Not your usual minority governments of special interests groups that claim legislative majority selected with popular vote. :)

[prometheus]

So, you haven't considered that perhaps the public school system in US is actually capitalism in action? :) Capitalism drives unlimited accumulation and competition for resources hence your war in Iraq which consumes a lot of money taken away from public welfare. No, not probable? :)



Not at all. I home school, yet the largest part of my property taxes are taken for a service I don't even use. I can not opt out. The "service" provided by this (in many places) mandatory institution is well below the standard home schoolers provide. ALL spelling, math, etc contests are won by home schoolers now days. The education received at private schools is also much better than public schools.

Mandatory finical support: check
Mandatory attendance: check
Substandard product: check

Sounds like socialism to me.





prometheus added to this post, 5 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Dude, I'm not arguing against your religious beliefs. I'm just saying that's all they are. I don't believe in Christian's natural rights either. And just so you know, you are jumping into a good ol' consequences of belief fallacy right there with that whole, "we gotta have natural rights or everything will fall apart" argument. I thought we were past using fallacies in our arguments. Civil rights are just fine, and one day people of different sexual orientations will have equal protection under the law because we earned it. I don't need to proclaim some natural right to screw as you seem to be insinuating.

And geez dude. Why you so interested in my sexual orientation? I'm sorry, but you just aren't my type. ;D

Eons ago, before real societies, when one person was attacked by another, they knew they could act to protect themselves. This is natural, instinctual, it is the Natural Right of self defense. How was this earned?


If I was gay, you would so want me.
I'm not going to get into any queer dance off to prove it, though. :P

[Mountain Lion]

That's not socialism :)

[prometheus]

That's not socialism :)

What? Taking earnings from individuals in a society to support a mandatory government ran "entitlement" (I'm using this word as loosely as possible here) for select members of the society isn't socialism?

Maybe you should answer those economic questions I asked a long time ago, to make sure we are on the same page here.

[Lights]

Eons ago, before real societies, when one person was attacked by another, they knew they could act to protect themselves. This is natural, instinctual, it is the Natural Right of self defense. How was this earned?

You are making an association between right to property and right to defend yourself with that statement. But the right to defend yourself is not inherent to the right to property, so it is an irrelevant argument to make. (Maybe it is in your mind, but it isn't to everyone else.)

The right to property is a religious concept that originated in the Bible. The law of Moses was the first proclamation of private property. Hence why totalitarian communism eradicates the concept of private property. A godless system will not adhere to a principle founded on religious belief. Your "right to property" is nothing more than a moral value. Not really any different than saying "homosexuality is abhorrent" since we seem to be on that topic. The whole "natural right to property" is just a rehash of a Biblical value that came about in the enlightenment.

Now I'm not arguing about the concept of property being important, but I consider a belief in a natural right to property to be simply a religious idea. One you have obviously taken to the fundamentalists extremes.

If I was gay, you would so want me.
I'm not going to get into any queer dance off to prove it, though. :P

Puhleez. An American Pie reference? :rolleyes:

[prometheus]

You are making an association between right to property and right to defend yourself with that statement. But the right to defend yourself is not inherent to the right to property, so it is an irrelevant argument to make. (Maybe it is in your mind, but it isn't to everyone else.)

The right to property is a religious concept that originated in the Bible. The law of Moses was the first proclamation of private property. Hence why totalitarian communism eradicates the concept of private property. A godless system will not adhere to a principle founded on religious belief. Your "right to property" is nothing more than a moral value. Not really any different than saying "homosexuality is abhorrent" since we seem to be on that topic. The whole "natural right to property" is just a rehash of a Biblical value that came about in the enlightenment.

Now I'm not arguing about the concept of property being important, but I consider a belief in a natural right to property to be simply a religious idea. One you have obviously taken to the fundamentalists extremes.



Puhleez. An American Pie reference? :rolleyes:

Same pre-society individual has just caught a fish, and a coyote decides to take it, would he not consider that property his and defend it?

...and you liked the Pie reference. :laugh: Here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. R rated NSFW

[Lights]

Same pre-society individual has just caught a fish, and a coyote decides to take it, would he not consider that property his and defend it?

Didn't I just say that I'm not contradicting the idea or importance of property. I'm merely stating the idea of a "right to property" is a religious concept. One that can be interpreted many different ways. Like an extremist, you have chosen to believe it is an absolute and universal concept. Not really much different than how the terrorists who flew the planes into the twin towers on 9-11, picked particular views out of Islam and chose to believe they were universal and absolute. It's your religion and I will respect that, but you are deluding yourself if you think is anything more.

[prometheus]

Didn't I just say that I'm not contradicting the idea or importance of property. I'm merely stating the idea of a "right to property" is a religious concept. One that can be interpreted many different ways. Like an extremist, you have chosen to believe it is an absolute and universal concept. Not really much different than how the terrorists who flew the planes into the twin towers on 9-11, picked particular views out of Islam and chose to believe they were universal and absolute. It's your religion and I will respect that, but you are deluding yourself if you think is anything more.

Remember the Fallacy of Moderation? And my favorite Guilt by Association?

Your beliefs of "charity" and taxes to support it (tithing) are much closer to a religious belief. If I did lean towards the libertarian religion, I'd be an Objectivist, D'uh.

[Lights]

Remember the Fallacy of Moderation? And my favorite Guilt by Association?

Your beliefs of "charity" and taxes to support it (tithing) are much closer to a religious belief. If I did lean towards the libertarian religion, I'd be an Objectivist, D'uh.

:laugh: Whatever you want to tell yourself. I love watching you try to place fallacies when you can't even explain why the arguments you are tying to use them on are fallacies. (Although I will admit that the terrorist crack was pushing it) The origins of your "right to property" are clear. It's a religious idea and one that you obviously follow religiously and with blind conviction. And I never said I didn't have my own beliefs. I just laugh that you have deluded yourself into thinking your beliefs are based on anything but the moral values you have integrated into your personal belief system. One day maybe you will learn how to question your own assumptions.

[prometheus]

:laugh: Whatever you want to tell yourself. I love watching you try to place fallacies when you can't even explain why the arguments you are tying to use them on are fallacies. (Although I will admit that the terrorist crack was pushing it) The origins of your "right to property" are clear. It's a religious idea and one that you obviously follow religiously and with blind conviction. And I never said I didn't have my own beliefs. I just laugh that you have deluded yourself into thinking your beliefs are based on anything but the moral values you have integrated into your personal belief system. One day maybe you will learn how to question your own assumptions.

I evaluate my beliefs every day. Think like an INTJ now how can you intellectually justify "blind compassion". If I don't know a person why would I take value from myself and give it to them. Speaking of religions, sheesh. The only reasons I can come up for this are promises of rewards after death (speaking of "terrorists"), the person saying it is running the con game and hopes to be on the receiving end more than the giving, or the person depends on the system for their employment.

If I have missed any justifications let me know right away M'Kay.

[Lights]

I evaluate my beliefs every day.

I've tested your evaluation ability. I wasn't impressed. You didn't even make it past the first step. It's obvious from your posts that you spend most of your time looking for information to support your views, and seldom, if any, time looking for information to challenge your views.

]Think like an INTJ now how can you intellectually justify "blind compassion". If I don't know a person why would I take value from myself and give it to them. Speaking of religions, sheesh. The only reasons I can come up for this are promises of rewards after death (speaking of "terrorists"), the person saying it is running the con game and hopes to be on the receiving end more than the giving, or the person depends on the system for their employment.

If I have missed any justifications let me know right away M'Kay.

That's cute. You can only think of personal justifications for being compassionate. Here is a word I never get tired of teaching INTJs.

Empathy: Understanding, being aware of, and being sensitive to the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another without actually sharing the feelings or emotions of another.

Compassion is expressed by helping and providing for others. Because I can empathize, it makes me happy to know that others are getting what they need and aren't suffering. And as happiness is the end of all means (assuming you believe Aristotle) I can't think of a better personal justification for why I like to be compassionate for my fellow human beings. Beyond personal justification, compassion makes the world a better place to live for everyone, it gives life some purpose, and it elevates humans beyond that of common egocentric animals. It's also hard to create enemies when you act compassionately.

But that is a good point. Maybe I do believe in compassion as blindly as you believe in private property. Fortunately, I'm not as much of an extremist as you.

[prometheus]

I've tested your evaluation ability. I wasn't impressed. You didn't even make it past the first step. It's obvious from your posts that you spend most of your time looking for information to support your views, and seldom, if any, time looking for information to challenge your views.



That's cute. You can only think of personal justifications for being compassionate. Here is a word I never get tired of teaching INTJs.

Empathy: Understanding, being aware of, and being sensitive to the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another without actually sharing the feelings or emotions of another.

Compassion is expressed by helping and providing for others. Because I can empathize, it makes me happy to know that others are getting what they need and aren't suffering. And as happiness is the end of all means (assuming you believe Aristotle) I can't think of a better personal justification for why I like to be compassionate for my fellow human beings. Beyond personal justification, compassion makes the world a better place to live for everyone, it gives life some purpose, and it elevates humans beyond that of common egocentric animals. It's also hard to create enemies when you act compassionately.

But that is a good point. Maybe I do believe in compassion as blindly as you believe in private property. Fortunately, I'm not as much of an extremist as you.

You are actually more of an extremist since your beliefs require forcing those beliefs upon me (theocracy in action) at the end of a gun if necessary. My beliefs would allow you to believe whatever you want as long as your beliefs don't force anything upon me.

FORCED compassion and empathy are neither. History if filled with examples of little men on power trips who force their beliefs on the populace "For their own good." If you really care for the unwashed masses, go do something personally for them and leave me out of it. We already figured out your livelihood is directly tied to the government welfare state. If you were to accept something as sensible and morally correct as my Property Rights arguments, these would shatter not just your righteous belief in your job, but also your entire moral structure. It really does just boil down to theft, no matter what you or Marx choose to call it.

With what's going on with the economy I'm curious if there is another socialist "New Deal" in the works, but I doubt it. The governmental parasites (which you are one of) have all but sucked our economy dry. You will never see "free" health care, and I doubt the current Medicaid program will last another 4 years.

[Lights]

You are actually more of an extremist since your beliefs require forcing those beliefs upon me (theocracy in action) at the end of a gun if necessary. My beliefs would allow you to believe whatever you want as long as your beliefs don't force anything upon me.

FORCED compassion and empathy are neither. History if filled with examples of little men on power trips who force their beliefs on the populace "For their own good." If you really care for the unwashed masses, go do something personally for them and leave me out of it. We already figured out your livelihood is directly tied to the government welfare state. If you were to accept something as sensible and morally correct as my Property Rights arguments, these would shatter not just your righteous belief in your job, but also your entire moral structure. It really does just boil down to theft, no matter what you or Marx choose to call it.

With what's going on with the economy I'm curious if there is another socialist "New Deal" in the works, but I doubt it. The governmental parasites (which you are one of) have all but sucked our economy dry. You will never see "free" health care, and I doubt the current Medicaid program will last another 4 years.

At the point of a gun? I recall that a few hundred years ago a bunch of white skinned assholes came across the Atlantic and repetitively over the centuries imposed their idea of "property" on the native inhabitants, often by force. If you truly value the "right to property", why don't you give your land back to the Native Americans who it was stolen from. :rolleyes:

Don't give me this whole, "morally right and sensible" bullshit, when all you are is an accomplice to theft.

[prometheus]

At the point of a gun? I recall that a few hundred years ago a bunch of white skinned assholes came across the Atlantic and repetitively over the centuries imposed their idea of "property" on the native inhabitants, often by force. If you truly value the "right to property", why don't you give your land back to the Native Americans who it was stolen from. :rolleyes:

Don't give me this whole, "morally right and sensible" bullshit, when all you are is an accomplice to theft.


Hey it was their fault for being on our property before we found it. Nasty blood thirsty buggers got what they deserved. ;D [/sarcasm] We did buy some of it, a lot of the tribes never claimed ownership, and most of all I didn't do it....

Collective Guilt now? :laugh: Tisk, tisk, you are really slipping. We as humans have displaced the buffalo and forests too....... :rolleyes:

[Lights]

Hey it was their fault for being on our property before we found it. Nasty blood thirsty buggers got what they deserved. ;D [/sarcasm] We did buy some of it, a lot of the tribes never claimed ownership, and most of all I didn't do it....

Collective Guilt now? :laugh: Tisk, tisk, you are really slipping. We as humans have displaced the buffalo and forests too....... :rolleyes:

Don't tell me after all this talk about respecting inalienable, absolute, and universal property rights you are backing down because it isn't convenient for you. Now if somebody knowingly buys stolen property then that makes them an accomplice to theft. Weren't you going on and on about how taxes are theft? Doesn't that make you more than a little bit of a hypocrite? The natives were here first, lived on the land first, and its more than likely they have never been paid for it. You live in Montana, not Rhode Island. And of course its easy to steal property from people who don't have the same concept of property. Which is kinda strange considering how you keep going on and on about how it is a natural concept. I'm not trying to guilt you, only point out the discrepancies in your own beliefs. The concept of labeling land as property emerged in the medieval ages as a means of subjugating those who lived on the land under those who "owned" it. That didn't even change when we brought the concept here.

[prometheus]

Don't tell me after all this talk about respecting inalienable, absolute, and universal property rights you are backing down because it isn't convenient for you. Now if somebody knowingly buys stolen property then that makes them an accomplice to theft. Weren't you going on and on about how taxes are theft? Doesn't that make you more than a little bit of a hypocrite? The natives were here first, lived on the land first, and its more than likely they have never been paid for it. You live in Montana, not Rhode Island. And of course its easy to steal property from people who don't have the same concept of property. Which is kinda strange considering how you keep going on and on about how it is a natural concept. I'm not trying to guilt you, only point out the discrepancies in your own beliefs. The concept of labeling land as property emerged in the medieval ages as a means of subjugating those who lived on the land under those who "owned" it. That didn't even change when we brought the concept here.



You have actually finally brought up a thought provoking argument. At this point (I do plan on thinking about this more later) I'll have to say I've never had a conflict with this because I bought my property from the previous owner, who voluntarily choose to sell it to me at mutuality agreed price with no government subsidies grants etc... I'm not responsible for the crimes of other individuals from over a century ago.


;)

[Lights]

You have actually finally brought up a thought provoking argument. At this point (I do plan on thinking about this more later) I'll have to say I've never had a conflict with this because I brought my property from the previous owner, who voluntarily choose to sell it to me at mutuality agreed price with no government subsidies grants etc... I'm not responsible for the crimes of other individuals from over a century ago.


;)

I just want you to recognize that your beliefs aren't superior to everybody else's. Regardless of whether you choose to accept it or not, there is no infallible belief. Even science is the constant experimenting and testing of established beliefs. And new things are discovered everyday about what we thought we knew. There are simply merits and faults to any ideology. That includes capitalism and socialism.

It's probably the most absurd thing imaginable that we even argue about what ultimately comes down to value judgments. And those are simply the products of our different experiences, personalties, current place in life, etc. You have your reasons for believing the way you do and I have mine. Nothing can be accomplished in a debate of value judgments other than both sides ending up pissed off at each other. I'll never be able to understand your point of view the way you do and you will never be able to understand mine. I guess that is simply the way it is.

[prometheus]

This really is an interesting tangent. I really want to say you are just as responsible as the swat teams for tax resistance related deaths....I really really want to. I'm still looking at the ancillary effects of that belief, though.





prometheus added to this post, 18 minutes and 13 seconds later...

I just want you to recognize that your beliefs aren't superior to everybody else's. Regardless of whether you choose to accept it or not, there is no infallible belief. Even science is the constant experimenting and testing of established beliefs. And new things are discovered everyday about what we thought we knew. There are simply merits and faults to any ideology. That includes capitalism and socialism.

It's probably the most absurd thing imaginable that we even argue about what ultimately comes down to value judgments. And those are simply the products of our different experiences, personalties, current place in life, etc. You have your reasons for believing the way you do and I have mine. Nothing can be accomplished in a debate of value judgments other than both sides ending up pissed off at each other. I'll never be able to understand your point of view the way you do and you will never be able to understand mine. I guess that is simply the way it is.

This is one of the roots of our differences. One of the few Objectivist ideals I wholeheartedly, absolutely agree with is there are solid, factual, knowable morals. Whereas, you are some flavor of feely, faith based Subjectivist.

MTA:
Oh, and for me my morals, values, and beliefs are more important to me. D'uh. Once again I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, as you are trying to do to me.

[Mountain Lion]

What? Taking earnings from individuals in a society to support a mandatory government ran "entitlement" (I'm using this word as loosely as possible here) for select members of the society isn't socialism?

Maybe you should answer those economic questions I asked a long time ago, to make sure we are on the same page here.

What you described earlier is an underfunded and poorly administered public school system in a capitalist economy and undemocratic state. I don't see how that's related to socialism :blank:


In socialism government is people. People who strive to survive and realize that they can achieve much more if they cooperate rather than act on their own or compete. So they pool together their resources and strive to develop the best social infrastructure they can afford and imagine. This provides them with more opportunities either to evolve or to enjoy their lives, much faster rate of progress for humanity as whole and allows everyone realize their individual responsibility toward fellow human beings and the world around them :)

[Bossy Mom]

What you described earlier is an underfunded and poorly administered public school system in a capitalist economy and undemocratic state. I don't see how that's related to socialism :blank:


In socialism government is people. People who strive to survive and realize that they can achieve much more if they cooperate rather than act on their own or compete. So they pool together their resources and strive to develop the best social infrastructure they can afford and imagine. This provides them with more opportunities either to evolve or to enjoy their lives, much faster rate of progress for humanity as whole and allows everyone realize their individual responsibility toward fellow human beings and the world around them :)

"In socialism government is people"? Ho, ho -- that is funny! Under socialism, the State is in control - the individual's only worth is how much he/she can contribute to the well being of the public (or Stalin or Pol Pot or whoever is in charge). And the State decides if the individual is worthy of living. The best infrastructure? Look at our schools. We are turning out too many illiterates and the money taxpayers are pouring into the school systems may as well be put into a pile and burned!

[Mountain Lion]

What makes you think that in socialism people are not in control :)

When I am looking at your schools, I see a mismanaged and underfunded public institution in a capitalist economy and undemocratic state. It's not a product of socialism :)

[prometheus]

What makes you think that :)


No, she is spot on (historically). Propaganda points awarded awarded to ML. ML, do you work in advertising or public relations?

[AgentofGaming]

"In socialism government is people"? Ho, ho -- that is funny! Under socialism, the State is in control - the individual's only worth is how much he/she can contribute to the well being of the public (or Stalin or Pol Pot or whoever is in charge). And the State decides if the individual is worthy of living. There is a difference between revolutionary socialism and democratic socialism. If you put them as one in the same you would be comparing Gordon Brown [Labour party (socialist)] to Joseph Stalin [Communist Party (socialist)]. Would you start calling the British communist & their prime minister a mass killer?

The best infrastructure? Look at our schools. We are turning out too many illiterates and the money taxpayers are pouring into the school systems may as well be put into a pile and burned!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
China has the highest math score, not bad for a Communist government.

If you think your money is wasted in education that has more to do with corrupt/inefficient government.
If you take a look at how people perceive their countries, the US doesn't do so well.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Meanwhile Sweden is one of the most social democratic governments has a better perception and a better education system.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Mountain Lion]

No, she is spot on (historically). Propaganda points awarded awarded to ML. ML, do you work in advertising or public relations?

:) I do not work in either of those fields. And a socialist or a communist state is yet to be build.

[Lights]

There is a difference between revolutionary socialism and democratic socialism. If you put them as one in the same you would be comparing Gordon Brown [Labour party (socialist)] to Joseph Stalin [Communist Party (socialist)]. Would you start calling the British communist & their prime minister a mass killer?

:) I do not work in either of those fields. And a socialist or a communist state is yet to be build.

How many times are you going to have to repeat yourselves before you realize that you are arguing against the same people, who are using the same arguments, and ignoring the same rebuttals? I mean, it's your time and energy to waste. But they don't care about the facts. They are selectively believing whatever information supports their value judgments. I've gone down this road three times now, and it leads to the same conclusion. People have their own agendas and they are going to believe whatever they want to believe. I'm just trying to save you a big headache.

On the topic of progressive thought, which presidential candidate do you think is more progressive? Hilary or Obama? Ron Paul?

[AgentofGaming]

I guess I was being too altruistic, but I try to represent the other side as there are readers who don't post.

If you're asking me, Ron Paul isn't even on the Canadian news.

[Lights]

If you're asking me, Ron Paul isn't even on the Canadian news.

That is funny. He really isn't in American news either.

[Mountain Lion]

People choose to believe instead of think because their beliefs make them feel safe and hopeful. Humans are vulnerable and if you can do something to help, why not. If you are willing to show them that their believes are actually harmful to them, they might open their minds.

[Lights]

People choose to believe instead of think because their beliefs make them feel safe and hopeful. Humans are vulnerable and if you can do something to help, why not. If you are willing to show them that their believes are actually harmful to them, they might open their minds.

A few weeks ago, I would have been eager to agree with you. But a certain somebody has taught me that once a person accepts that their belief is infallible, then they will become completely incapable of changing their minds. They become so drunk on the passion of their idea, that they automatically dismiss everyone else's beliefs as inferior and declare that people must respect their belief above all else. It becomes their duty in life to convert everyone to their way of thinking because it escapes their conception that what they believe is right, may not be universally right for everyone. It's mostly a lack of cultural relativism and critical thinking on their part.

If you don't believe me then read the socialized health care thread. Or better yet, read the arguments against libertarianism thread that came before it.

[prometheus]

A few weeks ago, I would have been eager to agree with you. But a certain somebody has taught me that once a person accepts that their belief is infallible, then they will become completely incapable of changing their minds. They become so drunk on the passion of their idea, that they automatically dismiss everyone else's beliefs as inferior and declare that people must respect their belief above all else. It becomes their duty in life to convert everyone to their way of thinking because it escapes their conception that what they believe is right, may not be universally right for everyone. It's mostly a lack of cultural relativism and critical thinking on their part.

If you don't believe me then read the socialized health care thread. Or better yet, read the arguments against libertarianism thread that came before it.


This is rich, considering all we(libertarians) ask is to be left alone, and you (collectivists) refuse. You insist we follow your beliefs and financially support them. The days of the masses being provided tax-funded bread and circuses, are near over. What do you think will happen when your group of moochers can no longer fulfill your handout promises?

MTA: Here is an excelent essay. Socialism: Illegitimate, Not Just Inefficient (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

It was not a defense of capitalism’s lower cost of bread or the higher quality of its bread. It was a defense of his right to own the bread that he had produced.

It is here that the socialist begins the fight. He rejects the owner’s exclusive claim, meaning his right to exclude everyone else from this bread. Society has a moral claim on this bread, the socialist claims.

There is no doubt that this socialistic argument has appealed to the masses from time to time. This was Etiene’s observation. Men’s acceptance of this moral claim has been the basis of their willingness to submit voluntarily to the State.

Etiene fully understood that if all men refused to cooperate with the State’s agents except under threat of immediate violence, no civil ruler could enforce his claims beyond his immediate surroundings. But men do submit, and not just out of fear. They believe that the civil rulers possess the moral right to enforce certain laws. They believe, in our day, that "some of your bread is mine."

There is a proper role for technical arguments. The fact is, socialism’s immorality has bad consequences. As surely as Ben Franklin’s Poor Richard was correct – "Honesty is the best policy" – so is capitalism more productive than socialism. There is moral cause and effect in social and economic affairs. This makes the case for liberty easier to make among the pragmatists of any era. The problem is, the most efficient defenders of the efficiency of the free market have generally been defenders of value-free economics. They have let their technical case against socialism stand alone. This lets the socialists off one of the two hooks, the hook that offers them their greatest propaganda advantage: the myth of their high moral ground.

We need defenders of the free market who understand both the inefficiency of collectivism and its immorality. It would be nice if they were effective coiners of aphorisms, the way that Bastiat was.

And, speaking of Bastiat: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._G1407

[Lights]

Do you see what I mean? A total generalized dismissal of other beliefs.

You insist we follow your beliefs and financially support them. The days of the masses being provided tax-funded bread and circuses, are near over. What do you think will happen when your group of moochers can no longer fulfill your handout promises?

And a demand for respect for his own.

considering all we(libertarians) ask is to be left alone, and you (collectivists) refuse.

Followed by links to articles that share his point of view in an effort to convert people to his way of thinking.

And all of this while ignoring the fact that he chooses to live in a republic ruled by majority decision. A display of his lack for understanding cultural relativism.

What is the point of arguing with him? He simply doesn't have the capacity to think differently because he has accepted his beliefs as infallible.

[prometheus]

I might want people to share my views, however unlike you I don't/wouldn't use force especially force of the government to forcefully compel obedience.

Your lack of understanding of the differences between a Republic and a Democracy once again (isn't this the third time I've had to explain this to you) is startling, do you have a learning disability or is this a symptom of being an inFj? I refuse to hold your hand through Remedial Political Systems....again. Mob rule, isn't nor was it ever, the American political system.

[Lights]

I know what a Republic is. Representatives and Senators are still elected by a majority, and it's a majority of their vote that passes laws. I don't need to play semantic games with you because you want to cover up the fact that you believe your beliefs are infallible and other's beliefs are inferior.

And I'm not impressed with your silly, "I'm not forcing anyone to do anything" argument. You are imposing your beliefs on others forcefully by choosing to live in America and demanding that others respect your beliefs, while not respecting theirs. All you are saying is "Respect my beliefs (even though I don't respect yours) or you will force me to defend myself." Then you feel justified going to war with anyone who does the same to you. "You don't have a right to force me to pay taxes because it goes against my beliefs!" You are guilty of the same crimes you are accusing others of committing. Which is exactly why I refuse to argue with you. The hypocrisy is never ending.

That's all I have to say on the matter. It seems ML thinks he will have better luck.

[Mountain Lion]

From Socialism: Illegitimate, Not Just Inefficient

Mises believed that the case against socialism was best made in terms of its economic irrationality, i.e., its inability to enable central planners to make rational economic calculations. Rothbard agreed with Mises’s technical critique, but he went further. He argued that the State is a moral monstrosity and a destroyer of liberty.



It would seem that Mises argued against central planned economy and a state. Government doesn't have to be a moral monstrosity. And socialism doesn't entail "irrational economic calculations." Capitalism is efficient at saving the costs of production at the expense of the human resources and product quality. That doesn't make it a "rational economic alternative" to a state planned economy.

[prometheus]

From Socialism: Illegitimate, Not Just Inefficient




It would seem that Mises argued against central planned economy and a state. Government doesn't have to be a moral monstrosity. And socialism doesn't entail "irrational economic calculations." Capitalism is efficient at saving the costs of production at the expense of the human resources and product quality. That doesn't make it a "rational economic alternative" to a state planned economy.

Governments always turn into moral monstrosities even if they don't start that way. Socialism is a flawed system based on force, always has been always will be. Are you serious about socialism producing better quality goods? Do you remember those cars that people would wait years to get in the Soviet Union? At the expense of human resources?????... Unlike communism, in a free market the worker has the choice to not work where he might feel mistreated.

Lights, Your beliefs are inferior to mine since yours are immoral, and unethical. You are nothing more than a parasite on the people who actually do things in this country. Stealing the products of others is theft no matter how you try to say it isn't.

[Mountain Lion]

Governments always turn into moral monstrosities even if they don't start that way.

That's what you believe, but it's not a fact :)

Socialism is a flawed system based on force, always has been always will be.

Not force, but cooperation as an enlightened self-interest. You are misunderstanding the concept you are arguing against.

Are you serious about socialism producing better quality goods? Do you remember those cars that people would wait years to get in the Soviet Union?

Yeah, I am serious. Soviet Union was not socialist. Just like People's Republic of China is not communist. Just because people call them so, it doesn't make them that. USSR and PRC were and are, at best, attempts at building socialism, nothing more. But in theory and in practice, based on the experience of social democratic states, the governments that are independent from capitalist influence can provide adequate quality product controls. Just look at the food industry in the US. What's marketed as bread or as vegetables is actually junk full of chemicals and toxins which have no place in human body. Car industry? Barely regulated to minimize the impact on the environment, and consequently human health, and implicated in dismantling and preventing the construction of an adequate public transportation infrastructure that would minimize the need for cars, reduce pollution and lower the costs for the commuters.


At the expense of human resources?????... Unlike communism, in a free market the worker has the choice to not work where he might feel mistreated.

What makes you think that in communism people don't have a choice to work where they want? On the contrary, because all levels of education are accessible for free, everyone is free to pursue their own interests according to their own talents and choices without feeling pressured by the inequalities of a stratified labour class. People can still be rewarded on individual basis for accepting more responsibilities than others, but the difference between the "white collar" and any other "collar" jobs are not exaggerated to a disproportionate degree.

Just like in socialism, in capitalism people are born into the world build on the backs and corpses of the slaves and other victims of violence. The capitalism, however, doesn't balance out the inequalities between the children of the former slaves and the children of those who exploited and forced other people to make them their fortunes.

[prometheus]

I disagree with all of your post I think, but I'll start here. Not force, but cooperation as an enlightened self-interest. You are misunderstanding the concept you are arguing against.

You couldn't be more wrong. With a socialist program, you are not allowed to NOT participate, they will force your compliance, using up to and including lethal force. You can not describe complying with something that is mandatory, as "cooperation" unless you are referring to the kind of cooperation where a Jack Booted Thug puts his boot on your neck."

Your statement about the Soviet Union not being socialist, may be correct insofar as it didn't achieve the utopian ideas that had been penned. It is a perfect example of how socialist/communist utopias require a perfect proletariat that doesn't exist. The flaws of the citizens are exaggerated in a socialist society, to say that socialism works is contradictory to all historical examples. People are lazy and are happy to suck off others if given the chance. Dude, even the tiny all voluntary communes of the hippies didn't work. How can you possibly argue differently.

TANSTAAFL

[Lights]

Lights, Your beliefs are inferior to mine since yours are immoral, and unethical.

Well at least you aren't pretending anymore that your beliefs aren't religiously motivated. I find your beliefs to be lacking in morality and ethics as well. I believe in respecting other people's beliefs, even if I don't agree with them. I've always said that as long as a person lives in this society and follows its laws, then they can live however they see fit. If they don't want to follow the laws, then they can go elsewhere. I see people who don't follow the laws as unethical and immoral, because if they didn't like them, then they always have the option of trying to have them changed or leaving.

You are nothing more than a parasite on the people who actually do things in this country. Stealing the products of others is theft no matter how you try to say it isn't.

So you are saying that college students and social workers are parasites? Why did I ever bother discussing anything with somebody as closed minded as you. Honestly, I can respect your beliefs, but I can't respect you as a person when you speak so vindictively about things you don't understand and refuse to even try to understand. You probably don't even have anything beyond a high school diploma. I've never met an educated person who acts the way you do.

[prometheus]

Well at least you aren't pretending anymore that your beliefs aren't religiously motivated. I find your beliefs to be lacking in morality and ethics as well. I believe in respecting other people's beliefs, even if I don't agree with them. I've always said that as long as a person lives in this society and follows its laws, then they can live however they see fit. If they don't want to follow the laws, then they can go elsewhere. I see people who don't follow the laws as unethical and immoral, because if they didn't like them, then they always have the option of trying to have them changed or leaving.



So you are saying that college students and social workers are parasites? Why did I ever bother discussing anything with somebody as closed minded as you. Honestly, I can respect your beliefs, but I can't respect you as a person when you speak so vindictively about things you don't understand and refuse to even try to understand. You probably don't even have anything beyond a high school diploma. I've never met an educated person who acts the way you do.

Yes, I went to college (it was even one of the last real Liberal Arts colleges) and I ran a successful business. Have you ever had other people competing against your skills in the free market? Social workers and bureaucrats are parasites, they don't contribute to the production of the nation and exist by the stolen goods from the productive class. I never said anything about students, however if they are using government provided monies then yes they are parasites also. Just try to stretch your closed mind around the thought of a nation composed of only social workers and bureaucrats, what would that nation be like...I mean besides starving.

I was never one of the people who welcomed the coming collapse, but that is changing with the thought of you unemployed, attempting to earn an honest living on the free market.

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it." Ayn Rand

MTA: Your continuing lack of any supporting links or quotes, your refusal to accept historical facts, and basing all your arguments on your "feelings", would actually lead most to believe you are the one lacking any education.

[Lights]

Yes, I went to college (it was even one of the last real Liberal Arts colleges) and I ran a successful business. Have you ever had other people competing against your skills in the free market? Social workers and bureaucrats are parasites, they don't contribute to the production of the nation and exist by the stolen goods from the productive class. I never said anything about students, however if they are using government provided monies then yes they are parasites also. Just try to stretch your closed mind around the thought of a nation composed of only social workers and bureaucrats, what would that nation be like...I mean besides starving.

I was never one of the people who welcomed the coming collapse, but that is changing with the thought of you unemployed, attempting to earn an honest living on the free market.

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it." Ayn Rand

So that is what all our arguments have really boiled down to. An objectivist versus a relativist...

It seems we differ at our most core fundamental values and so we percieve the world in entirely different ways.

It's sad that I could work my entire life, getting homeless people off the street, helping the disabled, getting children out of abusive homes, helping others overcome substance abuse, improving the lives and relationships of countless people, and fighting bigotry and social injustice, and all you would ever see in me, is a parasite. And at the same time you praise a system that creates inequalities and prejudices while it shelters discrimination and oppression. Production above all else. The only value in a man, is in what he creates and produces.

I don't think I have ever been so grateful in my entire life to be who I am.

[yondyr]

Sometimes the only 'help' some people should be given is the opportunity to off themselves in a tidy manner, instead of dragging it out and wasting others money.

[prometheus]

So that is what all our arguments have really boiled down to. An objectivist versus a relativist...

It seems we differ at our most core fundamental values and so we percieve the world in entirely different ways.

It's sad that I could work my entire life, getting homeless people off the street, helping the disabled, getting children out of abusive homes, helping others overcome substance abuse, improving the lives and relationships of countless people, and fighting bigotry and social injustice, and all you would ever see in me, is a parasite. And at the same time you praise a system that creates inequalities and prejudices while it shelters discrimination and oppression. Production above all else.
I don't think I have ever been so grateful in my entire life to be who I am.

I'm not in any way saying all your "good deeds" are wrong, just your methods are criminal. If you want to help people great, just understand you are helping others with stolen money, supported by a system of forced extortion.

I thought we established that in this century the socialist governments have committed more oppressive acts and murders that all the wars combined. If you want to be considered equal earn it!

The only value in a man, is in what he creates and produces.
Now you are catching on. I don't want a person with an IQ of 80 doing brain surgery on my loved ones, I don't want a blind person flying a plane I'm on, etc. etc. etc.. NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL, WITH A FREE MARKET ALL DO HAVE AN EQUAL CHANCE, THOUGH. This is real equality. Affirmative action and all the liberal "equalizers" are just a different flavor of racism.





prometheus added to this post, 4 minutes and 28 seconds later...

Sometimes the only 'help' some people should be given is the opportunity to off themselves in a tidy manner, instead of dragging it out and wasting others money.

:laugh:
Here is a look at Lights perfect world.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
We should take up a collection for razor blades and bullets. :p

[Lights]

Sometimes the only 'help' some people should be given is the opportunity to off themselves in a tidy manner, instead of dragging it out and wasting others money.

And while we are at it, we can embrace euthanasia and kill off all the disabled and mentally handicapped people who would be a burden on society. Heck, we might as well kill newborns who are born with deformities.

[yondyr]

Wherein did I say the act of ending it all would be involuntary, Lights?

[prometheus]

Wherein did I say the act of ending it all would be involuntary, Lights?

Lights feels NOTHING should be voluntary.

Here is another correction for Lights. An objectivist versus a relativist

Opposite of Objectivism is Subjectivism....

[yondyr]

(slaps prometheus down for putting words in anothers mouth)
However......I can see it now...the shopfront..Suicide Parlour(low cost suicide including funeral or free with donation of useable cadaver..no social services costs at all)

[Lights]

Wherein did I say the act of ending it all would be involuntary, Lights?

Forgive me. The correct way of saying that is we should let those who can't produce, starve to death or die of exposure.

Lights feels NOTHING should be voluntary.

Here is another correction for Lights.

Opposite of Objectivism is Subjectivism....

I'm a relativist. And I'll take the infraction to tell you that you are a dickhead for putting words in my mouth. :p Stop trying to polarize me to suit your own purposes. I've said countless times that I favor aspects of both capitalism and socialism.

In fact I'm ignoring you. Most of your latests posts have simply been personal attacks on me, and I don't see any point in continuing exchanges with you when I have already gotten what I need from you.

[yondyr]

Except for the fact that some charity minded people would voluntarily offer their homes, money and services without payments by govt...............yes

[Lights]

Except for the fact that some charity minded people would voluntarily offer their homes, money and services without payments by govt...............yes

But...then they wouldn't be following objectivist principles.

[yondyr]

Objectivist..relativist..subjectivist.. labels and yet more labels...my head is getting fuzzy......all I was commenting on was the laudable aspect of voluntary service without govt interference or support.

[Lights]

Objectivist..relativist..subjectivist.. labels and yet more labels...my head is getting fuzzy......all I was commenting on was the laudable aspect of voluntary service without govt interference or support.

Indeed. Very praiseworthy. It should be the goal of every human being to first take care of themselves, and when they can, to volunteer their services to their community. That is what being a good citizen is all about.

I consider myself to be very privileged, because I get to help people meet their basic needs and to teach them how to take care of themselves so that they can once again become valuable members of society. I guess if that makes me a parasite then I'm sure happy to be one.

[yondyr]

How bout we dispense with social responsibility, since I'm not responsible for their existence, let me just take care of myself and not be a charge upon another. And since we're coming at this from different directions, perhaps we should agree to disagree without belabouring the subject?

[Lights]

How bout we dispense with social responsibility, since I'm not responsible for their existence, let me just take care of myself and not be a charge upon another. And since we're coming at this from different directions, perhaps we should agree to disagree without belabouring the subject?

Well that is where you have limited yourself. Being egocentric is good for self preservation, but self preservation is only the beginning. But I agree, we are talking in circles. One moment you embrace charity and the next you shun the idea of any kind of social responsiblity. And I don't have the patience.

[yondyr]

Please don't distort my words, Lights. What I embraced was voluntary anything. Do not accuse me of being limited, egocentric, etc..address my words not me personally with your judgments.

[Lights]

Please don't distort my words, Lights. What I embraced was voluntary anything. Do not accuse me of being limited, egocentric, etc..address my words not me personally with your judgments.

Forgive me. It seems limited to me to see the world only with the intent of serving your self interests. And as that is the philosophy of egoism, egocentric seemed like an appropriate word.

[Bossy Mom]

But...then they wouldn't be following objectivist principles.

Another complete misrepresentation of objectivism. This is typical of a collectivist attack. If you ever saw "Dirty Dancing," there is one scene where Baby is asking Robbie (the creep who refused to pay for an abortion for the dancer he impregnated) to help with the abortion. Robbie brings out a copy of "The Fountainhead" and told Baby to read it. I was totally shocked! My daughter loves the movie, "Dirty Dancing," and when that scene came on, I expressed my disgust of the lie about Ayn Rand's book. I asked her, "Is Robbie like Howard Roark?" She looked at me with a shocked face and said, "NO!" Hollywood works with collectivists to lie and misrepresent objectivism. Also, once I went to church with a copy of "The Virtue of Selfishness" in my purse, and the pastor began his sermon making lies about objectivism and Ayn Rand. It certainly woke me up - with indignation! I wrote him a long letter the next day, but of course he never responded. I also left that church.

When I help others, I choose the causes I value, not those who hold the brute force of power tell me I value. There is no virtue to stealing from some to help others - there is no heroism in legalized theft.

[Lights]

Another complete misrepresentation of objectivism. This is typical of a collectivist attack. If you ever saw "Dirty Dancing," there is one scene where Baby is asking Robbie (the creep who refused to pay for an abortion for the dancer he impregnated) to help with the abortion. Robbie brings out a copy of "The Fountainhead" and told Baby to read it. I was totally shocked! My daughter loves the movie, "Dirty Dancing," and when that scene came on, I expressed my disgust of the lie about Ayn Rand's book. I asked her, "Is Robbie like Howard Roark?" She looked at me with a shocked face and said, "NO!" Hollywood works with collectivists to lie and misrepresent objectivism. Also, once I went to church with a copy of "The Virtue of Selfishness" in my purse, and the pastor began his sermon making lies about objectivism and Ayn Rand. It certainly woke me up - with indignation! I wrote him a long letter the next day, but of course he never responded. I also left that church.

When I help others, I choose the causes I value, not those who hold the brute force of power tell me I value. There is no virtue to stealing from some to help others - there is no heroism in legalized theft.

It seems you guys are picking and choosing which tenets of Ayn Rands philosophy you follow. She was quite obviously against the concept of social responsibility, regardless of whether or not it was voluntary.

Considering that "psychologists Albert Ellis and Nathaniel Branden argue that there are significant psychological hazards in following the philosophy of Ayn Rand.", I have no interest in continuing to discuss an ideology ruled by rationalization.

[Bossy Mom]

It seems you guys are picking and choosing which tenets of Ayn Rands philosophy you follow. She was quite obviously against the concept of social responsibility, regardless of whether or not it was voluntary.

Considering that "psychologists Albert Ellis and Nathaniel Branden argue that there are significant psychological hazards in following the philosophy of Ayn Rand.", I have no interest in continuing to discuss an ideology ruled by rationalization.

"Social responsibility" is your term, not Ayn Rand's. Ayn Rand's philosophy is logic- and reason-based and has nothing to do with rationalization. You are misrepresenting objectivism and have probably never read her works.

[Lights]

"Social responsibility" is your term, not Ayn Rand's. Ayn Rand's philosophy is logic- and reason-based and has nothing to do with rationalization. You are misrepresenting objectivism and have probably never read her works.

I have, starting with the Fountain Head my Freshman year of high school. I'm very aware of the principles of objectivism, and I think Ayn Rand would consider modern objectivists to be a cult and completely errant of her philosophy.

[blueback]

Why are you guys arguing about Ayn Rand's philosophy without quoting a single thing she said in explanation or defense of it?

From Rand (I added the emphasis)

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1) Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2) Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3) Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.




The thing that makes Objectivism unpalatable to most people is that it states unambiguously that individual, rational self-interest is the highest moral authority. Most people in the world are religious, so most people in the world disagree with that. Not only do they disagree with it, they are often physically opposed to entertaining the idea that it could be true. Tell the average person that UFOs are real and they'll humor you for 10 minutes, tell the average person that they are morally bankrupt if they expect their neighbors to give them charity just because they need it and they will punch you in the mouth.

Personally, I like Objectivism. It is the only philosophy I've ever investigated that didn't have any logical flaws. Of course, I'm realistic enough to understand that only a small percentage of the population will ever think hard enough about the world to adopt Objectivism, so saying that you've adopted it is basically like accusing them of being stupid and lazy, which no one takes well.

[Mountain Lion]

Unfortunately, I couldn't modify my original post that started this thread, so I am making a new post. Here are some more interesting academic quality sources for anyone interested in politics and philosophy:


Excellent academic quality series introducing numerous topics, including social progressive thinkers and movements: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. You might be able to find copies of Short Introduction series books in your local libraries. You can also buy them online in boxsets or in single volumes from the publisher or Amazon. Individual titles are very inexpensive considering their quality.

Another excellent series, Between the Lines: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. You can see all the titles they've published here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. You can purchase their books from different distributors in US, UK and Canada (you can check their home page for more information). As well as Amazon. These titles are also very inexpensive if you are interested in buying them.


Originally Posted by prometheus


Not force, but cooperation as an enlightened self-interest. You are misunderstanding the concept you are arguing against.

You couldn't be more wrong. With a socialist program, you are not allowed to NOT participate, they will force your compliance, using up to and including lethal force. You can not describe complying with something that is mandatory, as "cooperation" unless you are referring to the kind of cooperation where a Jack Booted Thug puts his boot on your neck."

What makes you think I am wrong and you are right in this instance :huh: Perhaps, your knowledge of socialism is not as extensive as you believe :)



Your statement about the Soviet Union not being socialist, may be correct insofar as it didn't achieve the utopian ideas that had been penned. It is a perfect example of how socialist/communist utopias require a perfect proletariat that doesn't exist.

I am not sure what you mean by "perfect proletariat," but to work socialism does require a form of social consciousness (common critical sense) that recognizes that the optimal path to survival lays in cooperation and not competition.

The flaws of the citizens are exaggerated in a socialist society, to say that socialism works is contradictory to all historical examples.

What makes you say that? What historical examples?

People are lazy and are happy to suck off others if given the chance. Dude, even the tiny all voluntary communes of the hippies didn't work. How can you possibly argue differently.


What makes you think that humans are lazy and happy to exploit others? That's a gross generalization. What voluntary communes did not work? I can argue differently because I am aware of the fallacies in your logic :blank:

[1OFMANY]

What voluntary communes did not work?
Thats the trick..VOLUNTARY. Early Mormon pioneers practiced "consecration" worked fine..cause they were all volunteers.

When you try to VOLUNTEER ME or prometheus then we are talking a whole different kind of govt :) and yes..it ALWAYS degenerates to forcing others "for their own good" dont fool yourself into thinking that mankind is any different now than he was 6000 years ago.

[Lights]

Thats the trick..VOLUNTARY. Early Mormon pioneers practiced "consecration" worked fine..cause they were all volunteers.

Excommunication for being a Bad Mormon is a powerful motivator.

[Mountain Lion]

it ALWAYS degenerates to forcing others "for their own good" dont fool yourself into thinking that mankind is any different now than he was 6000 years ago.
Sounds like a hypothesis to me :) What does "mankind is not any different" mean exactly?

[1OFMANY]

Excommunication for being a Bad Mormon is a powerful motivator. Not really. If I didnt want to hang out with people anymore and they said "you cant hang out with us!" ...I dont get your point.

besides, in your biggoted reply and race to insult a religion you missed the point of the thread :P

[Bossy Mom]

I have, starting with the Fountain Head my Freshman year of high school. I'm very aware of the principles of objectivism, and I think Ayn Rand would consider modern objectivists to be a cult and completely errant of her philosophy.

Reminder: Howard Roark was the hero of the book, not Ellsworth Toohey.

[Lights]

Reminder: Howard Roark was the hero of the book, not Ellsworth Toohey.

I think blueback stated her views very nicely.





Lights added to this post, 1 minutes and 15 seconds later...

Not really. If I didnt want to hang out with people anymore and they said "you cant hang out with us!" ...I dont get your point.

besides, in your biggoted reply and race to insult a religion you missed the point of the thread :P

Your point was they were volunteering and not being forced to. My reply was that they faced punishment if they didn't. My reply was in no way meant to be a biggoted reply to Mormons.

[snoogit]

History has proven that economies grow better when people are allowed to keep their money and use it as they see fit then when the government takes all their money and uses it as it sees fit.

No it hasn't...

If anything history has shown that the less you tax people then the private sector comes in and swoops up power, and starts controlling the populace the way the corporation sees fit, generally grinding the economy to a halt or worse into depression.

Its when there are fewer taxes, and less government influence that inflation rises, corporate, personal, and government borrowing rises, and recession starts to kick in as the currency gets more and more useless.

Ironically the best way to handle an economy is to allow certain private sectors to attain a monopoly, and regulate the hell out of it followed by providing basic human services (healthcare, education, protection) at the state level.

The industries that should be monopolized include:

Tele-comm
Resource production (Gasoline, Steel, etc)
Energy Production
Infrastructure Construction
and
Transportation

Generally the high yield, low profit industries should be monopolized, another problem is that in the US we've done this backwards. In the US we allow monopolies to exist in industries that should not be monopolized (retail, software development, media) and fight monopolies in industries that should be monopolized (resource procurement, energy).

A strong government regulated privately owned monopoly is a more efficient entity then smaller less effective non regulated industry.

I could go on, but I need to get a haircut.

[AgentofGaming]

Its when there are fewer taxes, and less government influence that inflation rises, corporate, personal, and government borrowing rises, and recession starts to kick in as the currency gets more and more useless.

Do you mind if I expand some views on this point?

In another way of seeing recessions, can't large monopolistic companies can be gaining from it? Consider that if they are in a monopoly position of a needed product: no matter the economic condition they have their product in demand. As for the small companies, they go bankrupt and sell for dirt cheap to the large companies, strengthening their monopoly.

As for more corporate influence and less government influence. Governments start licking their boots. Afterall it's their money that finances the politician's campaigns and possibly government income, and the government fears losing them.
Then it's no longer by the people for the people, but sponsored by the corporations for corporate interests..

[thod]

1) Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Well its true on a naive level. Yet so often my reality seems different to others that there is a case for saying reality is int he mind of the observer. Even if they are all observing a meta reality not of them observes its in its completness.


2) Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.


What is reason. Every man could be processing the information differently yet the emergent bahaviour is similar. We have us sensisble INTP's and you wacko INTJs for example.


3) Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.


Existing for my own sake means I will sacrifice others to that end. They do not matter. The two ideas are incompatable, I must forego my own interests to preserve his, or vice versa.


4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.


Where the strong shall rule the weak. It assumes all men are equal. I am not an artisan I cant make stuff for trade. The artisans skill is manufacture the soldiers skill is violence. It would be unreasonabnle to expect the soldier not to use his skill since he is looking after his interest. The government is the men of violence. Whoever contols them controls the rest.

Ayn Rand was always hopelessly naive. Her ideas bankrupt in the world of real politics. She is not taken seriously outside the lunatic fringe. She is not even regarded as a philosopher outside thsiu fringe. Just a minor and forgetable author.

[Bossy Mom]

Well its true on a naive level. Yet so often my reality seems different to others that there is a case for saying reality is int he mind of the observer. Even if they are all observing a meta reality not of them observes its in its completness.



What is reason. Every man could be processing the information differently yet the emergent bahaviour is similar. We have us sensisble INTP's and you wacko INTJs for example.



Existing for my own sake means I will sacrifice others to that end. They do not matter. The two ideas are incompatable, I must forego my own interests to preserve his, or vice versa.



Where the strong shall rule the weak. It assumes all men are equal. I am not an artisan I cant make stuff for trade. The artisans skill is manufacture the soldiers skill is violence. It would be unreasonabnle to expect the soldier not to use his skill since he is looking after his interest. The government is the men of violence. Whoever contols them controls the rest.

Ayn Rand was always hopelessly naive. Her ideas bankrupt in the world of real politics. She is not taken seriously outside the lunatic fringe. She is not even regarded as a philosopher outside thsiu fringe. Just a minor and forgetable author.

The comments above (bad grammar and spelling put aside) are typical attacks by collectivists to misrepresent the ideas of Ayn Rand. The statement, "Existing for my own sake means that I will sacrifice others to that end," is a total and complete distortion of Ayn Rand's ideas. The first portion of the statement, "Existing for my own sake," is true. The second portion of the statement, "I will sacrifice others to that end," is a total lie. An objectivist sacrifices NO ONE.

I used to work in a company where one man took a handful of employees and grew the company to over 42,000 employees. Did he use and sacrifice people to his own ends? No, he began a company that benefited his country AND his employees. These employees were able to demonstrate and use their skills in this company so that they could take care of their families and further their careers and their lives. Did Mother Theresa or government ever do that?

I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school. "Ayn Rand changed my life" --countless people have said this and so do I. Insulting me and others who just want to be left alone to create and live full lives without the oppression of government is the epitome of hubris. I am proud of the way I have lived my life. I have sacrificed no one, and I admire people who create and achieve their goals without stepping on others. Can any socialist say they don't step on others to achieve their goals? It is the only way they CAN achieve their goals.

Believe me, we who live by the moral standards of objectivism are not loud about it, and we are certainly not lunatics.

[prometheus]

What makes you think I am wrong and you are right in this instance :huh: Perhaps, your knowledge of socialism is not as extensive as you believe :)



I am not sure what you mean by "perfect proletariat," but to work socialism does require a form of social consciousness (common critical sense) that recognizes that the optimal path to survival lays in cooperation and not competition.



What makes you say that? What historical examples?



What makes you think that humans are lazy and happy to exploit others? That's a gross generalization. What voluntary communes did not work? I can argue differently because I am aware of the fallacies in your logic :blank:

I just returned from a week long anarcho-capitalist meetup and am very behind, not just here but elsewhere too. Could you be so kind as to give examples that would support why you think my statements are wrong instead of answering with other questions?

[thod]

The comments above (bad grammar and spelling put aside) are typical attacks by collectivists to misrepresent the ideas of Ayn Rand.

You are either with us or against us eh? Those in the cult are good, those outside evil.

Ayn Rand changed my life" --countless people have said this and so do I.

ohoh life changing book, bibles and Korans anyone.

Insulting me and others who just want to be left alone to create and live full lives without the oppression of government is the epitome of hubris.

So criticizing the ideas in an old book is an insult to you. Like pointing out the logical flaws in the bible is an attack on the faith.

The following is from wikipedia article on Ayn Rand:

Cult criticism
Murray Rothbard (who helped define modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism and wrote the Rand parody Mozart Was a Red),[110] Jeff Walker (author of The Ayn Rand Cult),[111] and Michael Shermer (founder of The Skeptics Society),[112] have accused Objectivism of being a cult, claiming typical cult traits, including slavish adherence to unprovable doctrine and extreme adulation of the founder.

The Biographical FAQ of the Objectivism Reference Center website discusses these allegations and refers to a letter in which Rand replies to a fan who wrote her offering cult-like allegiance by declaring "A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult".[113]


The very existence of such phrases by notable people should ring some bells. But of course we know that it was put there by the collectivist conspiracy. Just like dinosaur bones were placed by the devil.

Now ask yourself how would John Galt respond to these scurrilous allegations. Oh thats what randians do anyway, same as christians do with christ.

[Mountain Lion]

I just returned from a week long anarcho-capitalist meetup and am very behind, not just here but elsewhere too. Could you be so kind as to give examples that would support why you think my statements are wrong instead of answering with other questions?
Please, see the following thread: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. :) You'll find all the answers I can offer there. My questions serve a function, to make you think and reevaluate your assumptions. Giving answers away serves no purpose if you are no willing to think.

[prometheus]

Please, see the following thread: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. :) You'll find all the answers I can offer there. My questions serve a function, to make you think and reevaluate your assumptions. Giving answers away serves no purpose if you are no willing to think.


Fair enough. I know several people have asked you what you picture a Socialist/Marxist/Communist society, since you have rejected our claims of historical comparisons, would you please describe what you envision, and how that would come about without falling to the same errors of all the past failures.

[Mountain Lion]

I once again refer you to that particular thread.

[prometheus]

I once again refer you to that particular thread.

Is this what you refer to?

To achieve socialism would require a substantial change in people's attitudes and the established practices of organizing human societies: chief obstacles would be the establishment of a democratic state, abolishment of national identity, institution of freely accessible quality education for everyone and implementation of a new system of coordinated support for the victims of violence and the systematic hardships imposed by the people in power on their subordinates in order to control them. Socialism can't happen overnight or in a violent revolution, but it does require a revolution in a human consciousness... as well as patience, effort and determination in systematic and coordinated attempts of people around the globe to create the necessary social conditions that would nullify the power of capitalism and provide fertile ground for socialism. It's not impossible, it's hard.

This is nothing more than psychological babble. I feel like I need a red pen while reading it.

"systematic and coordinated attempts" Which are/have been?

"create the necessary social conditions" What are these conditions?

"nullify the power of capitalism" How?

"a substantial change in people's attitudes" To what?

"established practices of organizing human societies" Which have been?

"chief obstacles would be the establishment of a democratic state, abolishment of national identity, institution of freely accessible quality education for everyone and implementation of a new system of coordinated support for the victims of violence and the systematic hardships imposed by the people in power on their subordinates in order to control them." Hasn't it been claimed that most Scandinavian countries already have all of these? If so why are they not your Socialist Utopia?

"a revolution in a human consciousness." Will this require the Flying Spaghetti Monster? ;D

[thod]

You see the state as 1000 bonds binding you and intruding on your individuality. You fear losing yourself in it. It is that loss of self you cannot abide, not collectivism certainly not taxation or welfare programs.

Others do not see the welfare state in this light. To them its not 1000 bonds, but 1000 mothers arms. Wrapping them and keeping them safe. They know that if they do their part, the part they are told, then all will be well and they can get on with their lives.

[Lights]

This is nothing more than psychological babble.

Now you know how I feel when I read your objectivist arguments. Wishful thinking is such a drag, no matter whether its capitalistic or socialistic.

[Mountain Lion]

Is this what you refer to?
Including that, yes. And all the questions below have been answered already. I'll do this once more. But, unfortunately, I don't have time to keep repeating myself. So, if you have any more questions please look at the sources I've been introducing and including this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


This is nothing more than psychological babble.
I understand that you don't understand.


I feel like I need a red pen while reading it.

I respect your feelings :)




"systematic and coordinated attempts" Which are/have been?

Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ions)is an example.


"create the necessary social conditions" What are these conditions?
A few of them: "the establishment of a democratic state, abolishment of national identity, institution of freely accessible quality education for everyone and implementation of a new system of coordinated support for the victims of violence and the systematic hardships imposed by the people in power on their subordinates in order to control them."


"nullify the power of capitalism" How?
By disrupting the accumulation, commodification and expropriation of financial , natural and labour resources by capitalist interests. Changing the electoral system (how? million dollar question. if I have a chance i'll write a PhD thesis on the topic). Dismantling the capitalist infrastructure using state and judicial apparatus.



"a substantial change in people's attitudes" To what?
Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


"established practices of organizing human societies" Which have been?
No time to give lessons of such magnitude! Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._of_early_civilizations)


"chief obstacles would be the establishment of a democratic state, abolishment of national identity, institution of freely accessible quality education for everyone and implementation of a new system of coordinated support for the victims of violence and the systematic hardships imposed by the people in power on their subordinates in order to control them." Hasn't it been claimed that most Scandinavian countries already have all of these? If so why are they not your Socialist Utopia?
I've never claimed that, so can't help you.

"a revolution in a human consciousness." Will this require the Flying Spaghetti Monster? ;D
I am not sure what's "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is. But I've already mentioned what it will require: freely accessible quality education. Example? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[prometheus]

You see the state as 1000 bonds binding you and intruding on your individuality. You fear losing yourself in it. It is that loss of self you cannot abide, not collectivism certainly not taxation or welfare programs.

Others do not see the welfare state in this light. To them its not 1000 bonds, but 1000 mothers arms. Wrapping them and keeping them safe. They know that if they do their part, the part they are told, then all will be well and they can get on with their lives.

That was a good analogy. I however consider myself an adult, and if I don't want her spitting on a hanky and wiping my nose (health care)I feel I should be able forbid that action, and also I don't need a curfew(police state surveillance), or forced nap (OSHA) and reading time(mandatory education). Others (most notably) the mentally handicapped might need those actions after they become adults I however do not.





prometheus added to this post, 13 minutes and 52 seconds later...


By disrupting the accumulation, commodification and expropriation of financial , natural and labour resources by capitalist interests. Changing the electoral system (how? million dollar question. if I have a chance i'll write a PhD thesis on the topic). Dismantling the capitalist infrastructure using state and judicial apparatus.

I know The CCCP did all of these. It didn't seem to work out for them. Which of those planks did they NOT adopt?


I've never claimed that, so can't help you.
Many others have claimed just that, which platforms (that YOU mentioned) have they not adopted?


I am not sure what's "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is. But I've already mentioned what it will require: freely accessible quality education.
I find myself rooting for this, it sure does sound good since I'd rather look at young, firm girls between keggers and bong hits, however so would everybody else, or is there a subspecies of mankind that enjoys cleaning toilets, and sweating at forging machines? This is one of the causes of the failures of all socialist utopian societies, nobody wants to do the nasty jobs. Or do you envision someone FORCING prols to do these jobs, while you deliver a dissertation (perhaps about the direct correlation between phallus and oral cavities) to the before mentioned tasty girls? ;D

[Lights]

That was a good analogy. I however consider myself an adult, and if I don't want her spitting on a hanky and wiping my nose (health care)I feel I should be able forbid that action, and also I don't need a curfew(police state surveillance), or forced nap (OSHA) and reading time(mandatory education). Others (most notably) the mentally handicapped might need those actions after they become adults I however do not.

You sound oddly like an adolescent. :stunned: And may I remind you that you are living under our roof. :p

I think in this analogy, an adult would recognize their interdependence with the government rather than fiercely declaring their independence from it.

Socrates made the point in Crito, that even though he didn't agree with the policies of Athens, he was born, nurtured, raised, educated, and protected by the city. He had even raised his own children within the city. He understood that the city had provided for him, and he was more than willing to provide for the city, even when it asked for his life. After all, as he said, at anytime he could have chosen to leave. I would consider that, the thinking of an adult.

[prometheus]

Socrates made the point in Crito, that even though he didn't agree with the policies of Athens, he was born, nurtured, raised, educated, and protected by the city. He had even raised his own children within the city. He understood that the city had provided for him, and he was more than willing to provide for the city, even when it asked for his life. After all, as he said, at anytime he could have chosen to leave. I would consider that, the thinking of an adult.

I did not sign the original compact between the states, so unless like slaves you feel our children are passed on like chattel to the master's estate you are wrong. I have as much, or more of a right to be here than you.

[Lights]

I did not sign the original compact between the states, so unless like slaves you feel our children are passed on like chattel to the master's estate you are wrong. I have as much, or more of a right to be here than you.

And you obviously, completely missed the point. :laugh:

A man is dependent on his government, and the government is dependent on each individual. It's called interdependence.

Since you insist on quotes, here are few.

The community stagnates without the impulse of the individual. The impulse dies away without the sympathy of the community.

William James

Interdependence is and ought to be as much the ideal of man as self-sufficiency. Man is a social being. Without interrelation with society he cannot realize his oneness with the universe or suppress his egotism. His social interdependence enables him to test his faith and to prove himself on the touchstone of reality.

Mahatma Gandhi

Independent thinking alone is not suited to interdependent reality. Independent people who do not have the maturity to think and act interdependently may be good individual producers, but they won't be good leaders or team players. They're not coming from the paradigm of interdependence necessary to succeed in marriage, family, or organizational reality.

Stephen Covey

[Mountain Lion]

I know The CCCP did all of these. It didn't seem to work out for them. Which of those planks did they NOT adopt?

None of them! Education came somewhat close, though.


Many others have claimed just that, which platforms (that YOU mentioned) have they not adopted?

They are not democratic, though closer than most countries. Before you start asking me what constitutes a democracy, you can check here first: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. They function as nation states, some invest too many resources acquiring and developing offensive weapons, not all have Finland's approach to education, rely on global trade more than they have to thus fostering dependence on multinationals and preventing local growth of small clean enterprises... :blank:


I find myself rooting for this, it sure does sound good since I'd rather look at young, firm girls between keggers and bong hits, however so would everybody else, or is there a subspecies of mankind that enjoys cleaning toilets, and sweating at forging machines? This is one of the causes of the failures of all socialist utopian societies, nobody wants to do the nasty jobs. Or do you envision someone FORCING prols to do these jobs, while you deliver a dissertation (perhaps about the direct correlation between phallus and oral cavities) to the before mentioned tasty girls? ;D

Are you telling me you can't clean your own toilet or afraid of sweating? If people are taught and conditioned to take responsibility for themselves, none will need to clean after them. In cases when public spaces have to be cleaned, there can be rotational duty among the individuals or groups of those who use them. The key words are collaboration, community, interdependence, respect and responsibility.

Demeaning women is crude! :thumbsdown:

[prometheus]

When I was in university I also had great socialist hopes for the world. I even had a manifesto and followers. I called my work "For the People, By the People" Feel free to use this title for your work if you want, even though I still have it on 5 1/4 it will never be read again. As I grew older I realized that the world is composed of mostly lazy, selfish, stupid people and until that changes there isn't any hope of a utopian society. My more mature philosophy of Anarcho-Capitalism actually encourages more equality (individual) than any socialist ethos. Until (unlikely) the people of this earth embrace the belief of "brotherly love" (or what ever you wish to call it) all of your work is just mental masturbation.

I feel we have more than covered the reasons why socialism hasn't in the past worked and won't work with the current mental dispositions of "the people". I'd like to hear how you plan to bring about this enlightenment you will require. I jokingly brought up The FSM (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) before, seeing your kind of belief in such a drastic change requiring some sort of religious awakening.

[Mountain Lion]

We are what we choose to be, subject to the constraints of history. The most one can ask of oneself is to try his/her best to push beyond personal limitations. So all you can do is to inspire people to be the best they can be and reduce the potential constraints. You can either do that on individual basis or through a collaborative effort.

[prometheus]

We are what we choose to be, subject to the constraints of history. The most one can ask of oneself is to try his/her best to push beyond personal limitations. So all you can do is to inspire people to be the best they can be and reduce the potential constraints. You can either do that on individual basis or through a collaborative effort.


Do you have any specific thoughts on this, besides the countless women in the Niagara Falls area?

Seriously, have you considered going into the PR field. You could be great.

[Mountain Lion]

You have your own head on the shoulders. As you continue to keep an open mind and work hard, you will find your own solutions :)

[MrFlaneur]

I believe America is a great country because it is capitalistic, but also because it has taken great strides to protect its poor and underprivileged. After reading some of the bigoted, and outright shameful views of purely capitalistic minded folks on this forum toward the poor, I am very grateful that such steps are taken. The poor in America are often seen as lazy, uneducated, criminal, etc. when most of the time that just isn't the case. It's an oversimplification that some truly ignorant people make in order to justify their tainted views.



yeah thats the only answer

the truth is that big ideas never work

evolution is the key not revolution

just let things flow and have a modest sense of decency and you cant go wrong

[Marduk]

I think that the idea of equality the socialism relies on, is fallacious at its core, because people actually are not robots of the same series, produced by the same production line, and they differ in abilities, intelligence, willingnes to use them etc. To ignore these differences is stupid. Another nice paradox of communism (and socialism) was shown in a very nice way by Victor Suworow, a furmer KGB agent. It is the guard's paradox. In a free market capitalism, everyone have his own plate, his own fork, his own spoon, and his own food. In socialism, you have a huge pot with food, people who are hungry, and the guards, who decide who should eat, when, and how much. And the guards answer just to themselves. And that is how socialism is creating a real class war. The one class is the people, and the other are the guards of socialism, who were the party in communistic eastern block countries. If any of you live in any former people's republic, he surely knows how did it look like.
Another fallacy is the "equal pay" one. In former communist countries, there are even jokes about it. "No matter if you work or you lay and rest, you can have your 1000 zł". In capitalism, you either work and get money, or not work, get fired, and get no money. And this facts discourages people for improving qualifications too. Why should one purse to get abilities of doing a harder job, while he can do the easier one, without much difference in the payout? The facts that people are generally selfish, lazy, and if they see a way of cheating the system for their own profit, they will do it, are ones that you can always rely on.

[LaoTzu]

I tend to disagree with your worldview Marduk.... People do what people do. I dont think of them as inherently evil. But I dont think of them as inherently good either... progressivism looks at each sitation according to it's merits... conservatism seeks to set up rigid structures to keep the sheeple in thier pens....

Im a progressive type, only in that I identify with the goals of progressive 'leaders' in the world. I do believe that we should be able to provide basic necessities for all people all over the world.... Our production capacity, the resource levels..... we could feed/shelter, and clothe every person on this planet with very little difficulty. ('we' being the global body)

Until we do, you will have a hard time convincing me of the benefits of capitalism.
Oddly I test as a bigtime socialist on those goofy politics tests, but I dont think government should be telling people how to live either. And I dont believe in plain old handouts.... People just shouldnt have to worry about starving to death in the street...

The idea that a poor person in the ghetto has got the same shot in life as some kid in the suburbs is just plain retarded....its an argument used by people who KNOW good/evil and yet seek to justify thier lot in life by saying 'they work harder than anyone else'....

Only the conservative world view states that people are inherently EVIL and need to be led.

[Marduk]

I have seen what socialistic economy leads to. I live in a former eastern block country. I can ask anyone n their 30's, 40's or older how did it look, and if you heard what they say, you would be frightened. You would be frightened that they sound just like conservatists.
Our production capacity, the resource levels..... we could feed/shelter, and clothe every person on this planet with very little difficulty. ('we' being the global body)
In the socialistic economy, all the factories were telling everyone how high their production levels are, and how fast are they rising. Unfortunately, that had nothing to do with the truth. And the truth was, that you had to be lucky to find toilet paper in a shop. Other "luxurious" articles included sugar, meat, sweets, coffee etc. Things like a things like home electronics and cars were extermaly rare among people not related to the party or their factories. I remember my grandmother stealing paper from her work, because there was no toilet paper in shops. The point is, no matter what communism says about it's production llevels, it makes them fall extermaly low. Our actual "production capacity" is not somehing granted and natural. It is largery caused by the capitalism. Take the capitalism away, and they will start to fall.
I do believe that we should be able to provide basic necessities for all people all over the world....
And doesn't capitalism do it? Yes it does. At least for people who work for their share of the goods. No work, no goods. It seems fair for me. For all the people over the world? Capitalism have an answer - free trade. They can have our goods, but first, they have to pay for them with their own work or goods. If they have nothing for trade, then, they don't deserve the goods. Otherwise, you get a system, in which the difference between working and being a lazy parasite is getting smaller and smaller. And that's the genesis of the joke "No matter if you work or you lay and rest, you can have your 1000 zł".
The average Joe won't work, when he is seeing that Jim is getting the same goods he is getting, without working. Joe will not work, like Jim, and still want the same goods. That lead to an economy, where many were just pretending they were working, almost no work was done, everyone wanted to get goods, no one wanted to produce goods, so the shops were nearly empty, and everyone was bitching about it. And that's the short, simple story on how the socialistic economy failed.
You, idealist socialists, like this system, because you don't know the practice of it. You just know the theory, which looks good. But the practice is different. The eastern block did something we could call an empirical experiment. And the conclusion the experiment gave us, is that socialism sucks. It just won't admit it until it crashes totally.

[zibber]

I think that the idea of equality the socialism relies on, is fallacious at its core, because people actually are not robots of the same series, produced by the same production line, and they differ in abilities, intelligence, willingnes to use them etc. To ignore these differences is stupid. Another nice paradox of communism (and socialism) was shown in a very nice way by Victor Suworow, a furmer KGB agent. It is the guard's paradox. In a free market capitalism, everyone have his own plate, his own fork, his own spoon, and his own food. In socialism, you have a huge pot with food, people who are hungry, and the guards, who decide who should eat, when, and how much. And the guards answer just to themselves. And that is how socialism is creating a real class war. The one class is the people, and the other are the guards of socialism, who were the party in communistic eastern block countries. If any of you live in any former people's republic, he surely knows how did it look like.
Another fallacy is the "equal pay" one. In former communist countries, there are even jokes about it. "No matter if you work or you lay and rest, you can have your 1000 zł". In capitalism, you either work and get money, or not work, get fired, and get no money. And this facts discourages people for improving qualifications too. Why should one purse to get abilities of doing a harder job, while he can do the easier one, without much difference in the payout? The facts that people are generally selfish, lazy, and if they see a way of cheating the system for their own profit, they will do it, are ones that you can always rely on.

Lord, lord, lord.. all of this is based on examples of socialist/communist "governance" that were doomed from the start. That does not "disprove" socialism. To say that socialism is "fallacious" is absolutely ridiculous, as this would imply the existence of one infallacious system, that being the correct one.

(I mean, think about it. Would you attack christian teachings based solely on the crusades and inquisition?)

What the examples show is that top-down socialism, institutionalised socialism on a massive scale, is very problematic. As the banned fellow said, for that to work everyone needs to work together and everyone needs to understand, respect and, most importantly, support the tenets.

[Marduk]

As the banned fellow said, for that to work everyone needs to work together and everyone needs to understand, respect and, most importantly, support the tenets.
And the conservatives know people are not like that, and they will never be.
Nazism too would not be so bad at all if everyone was a perfect, blonde aryan.
To say that socialism is "fallacious" is absolutely ridiculous, as this would imply the existence of one infallacious system, that being the correct one.
Ok, now you have accepted that socialism is not a perfect system, y saying there is no perfect system. Now, do you understand that some systems work better than the other ones?

[LaoTzu]

k, well.... the soviets went bankrupt. That was the 'end' of communism (or one poorly constructed variation of it). Look at the US right now... they're about to go bankrupt too. Is that going to be the 'end' of capitalism?

I have to agree there is no perfect solution. And I really really hate the idea that capitalism is the best we have. Railing against socialism isn't going to get you anywhere near a perfect system; because you are failing to see capitalism's flaws..... why do you think the people in North America are so reliant on prescription drugs??? Their lives (traditionally lived) are meaningless!


And if you are saying socialism sucks because people are not robots, I return to you that capitalism sucks because in the end robots will be the only ones working.

No work , No Food, No problem for your CEO.



Just one final point..... Dont you think it odd, the hysteria in the USA about communism?? The years and years of indoctrination .... the witchhunts... the 'Red Menace' .... It continued all the way thru the 80's... isnt it weird that an ideology that found popular support in 2/3's of the world was such a horrible thing that the western media had to remind you constantly how horrific and menacing it was??? Do you not see they had their own agenda? :/

[Marduk]

k, well.... the soviets went bankrupt. That was the 'end' of communism (or one poorly constructed variation of it). Look at the US right now... they're about to go bankrupt too. Is that going to be the 'end' of capitalism?
You forgot to mention that this is happening because of socialist policies being introduced into this system. Notably, forcing banks to give loans to poor people about who they knew they would not be able to pay off these loans.

I have to agree there is no perfect solution. And I really really hate the idea that capitalism is the best we have. Railing against socialism isn't going to get you anywhere near a perfect system; because you are failing to see capitalism's flaws.....
I'll say it like Churchill would. Capitalism is a shitty system, but it is the best one we have. And socialism is really not an antidote for these flaws, just like ebola is not an antidote for the common cold.
why do you think the people in North America are so reliant on prescription drugs??? Their lives (traditionally lived) are meaningless!
Maybye you don't know that, but the same is true for western european countries. For example France, that could be called one of more leftist countries in the Europe. So it has nothing to do with tradition or capitalism.

And if you are saying socialism sucks because people are not robots, I return to you that capitalism sucks because in the end robots will be the only ones working.


And wouldn't that be awesome? People being lazy, robots working. Having machines doing the work instead of humans is one of most important factors for the huge difference in the living standard between first world and the third world.

No work , No Food, No problem for your CEO.
As if your food was something for CEO to care about...
The only thing he should care about is paying for the work you do for him.

Just one final point..... Dont you think it odd, the hysteria in the USA about communism?? The years and years of indoctrination .... the witchhunts... the 'Red Menace' .... It continued all the way thru the 80's... isnt it weird that an ideology that found popular support in 2/3's of the world was such a horrible thing that the western media had to remind you constantly how horrific and menacing it was??? Do you not see they had their own agenda? :/
You pointed a very interesting fact, one i was talking about in another topic.
And you know what? They were right about hysterising, witchhunts, and Red menace. The bad thing is, they were not right enough. KGB had upper hand durning practically the whole cold war.
I posted this video, iti s in 2 parts:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The guy on this video is Yuri Bezmenov, a KGB defector. The same KGB Vladimir Putin was an agent of. Who can tell you more truth about the "Red Menace", than a guy who was a part of it? He will explain to you how did the "popular support" appear, and why the right wing politicians were so scared about the communism.

[errrzarrr]

Go Liberalism/Progressivism! ;)

[zibber]

And the conservatives know people are not like that, and they will never be.
Nazism too would not be so bad at all if everyone was a perfect, blonde aryan.

Jesus, dude. There's a difference between being compassionate, working together and sharing resources and being of a specific ethnicity (with specific eye and hair colors to boot). What the hell? Everyone can be a "good socialist", it's not tied to one genetic composition.

Ok, now you have accepted that socialism is not a perfect system, y saying there is no perfect system. Now, do you understand that some systems work better than the other ones?

You should probably rephrase that and see about the typo; I'm not sure what to do with this.

(Just to be clear, "(free market) capitalism" isn't really a system. It's simply what automatically unfolds when everyone is out for themselves. (Unless you consider "no rules" a rule. (I'm reminded of patents, copyrights and the like, but it could be argued that these don't congrue with the idea of a fully free market. (The same goes for protectionism. (I need to stop this.)))))

[Marduk]

Jesus, dude. There's a difference between being compassionate, working together and sharing resources and being of a specific ethnicity (with specific eye and hair colors to boot). What the hell? Everyone can be a "good socialist", it's not tied to one genetic composition.
I have given you an example of a sick ideology. And all you have to say it that is it sick just because of ethnicity based discrimination? What about the rest? The rest, of which socialism shares a good part? Would nazism be good if everyone could be a perfect nazi? What will your socialism do with people who don't want to share resources and be compassionate? We know what national socialism (nazism) and international socialism (communism) were doing in this case, and that's the main cause i hate them for. That's the difference between socialism and capitalism. In socialism, you can't be a capitalist, and freely use what you earn. In capitalism, you can just what you want with goods you earn, use them, keep them, share them, your choice, and this choice is an important part of freedom. And who would decide when to be compassionate, who will give resources, who will get them, and how much? Who will watch this person/group's hands?

(Just to be clear, "(free market) capitalism" isn't really a system. It's simply what automatically unfolds when everyone is out for themselves. (Unless you consider "no rules" a rule. (I'm reminded of patents, copyrights and the like, but it could be argued that these don't congrue with the idea of a fully free market. (The same goes for protectionism. (I need to stop this.)))))
That's why you have most libertarians bitching about the things you mentioned.

[Cairech]

Blueback says: "On the other hand, pure socialism doesn't work. It can't."

Socialism, or its close political relative, communism, has been proven to work very well. However, it is only successful in groups of about 100 or less. At that size, everyone knows what everyone else is doing. No one gets away with hoarding or slacking.

One example is early "pilgrim" settlements in what would become the U.S. Everything was built and owned by the group, and they succeeded wildly until the group outgrew this approximate size.

[Marduk]

Socialism, or its close political relative, communism, has been proven to work very well. However, it is only successful in groups of about 100 or less. At that size, everyone knows what everyone else is doing. No one gets away with hoarding or slacking.
Add a few differences:
-a lot of these people were related
-all of them were bonded emotionally
-they always had common social, religious and ethinical background
-they had no ideology for it
-everyone was willing to support the group
-everyone was assured that his successfulness is directly related to successfulness of the group
-there was nothing similar to modern country health care, totally different social security system, and very simplified education
-these groups had much simpler economies