»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Socialism and its Enemies
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Socialism and its Enemies |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Angel's post has moved in so many different directions that I think it's time to start another thread. Personally, I think she is doing a great job in arguing her position but some people have expressed and interest in Communism and if nobody's noticed this yet; I have certain sympathies in that direction and have been told that I have a pretty good handle on the theory (at least that's what professors and fellow graduate students used to tell me  ) .As a short aside, I should mention that one of my socialist friends has said to me, "Brad, you know if the revolution does come, you'll be the first on . . ." You know the rest. I'm a heretic to the orthodox theory. Two points I want to make first: I am not a Communist (although some call me a pinko Commie) and I could be jailed in the country I live in for expousing such a faith (more about that later). I do not and will not defend the current system of government in North Korea; it's murdering it's own people for the sake of an idea. The problem is I don't think that's Socialism. Second, I want to discuss theoretical Socialism, not actual existing socialism as practiced in Europe and/or China and Cuba (as eventually you'll see; I don't think that's Socialism). That may just may be me of course; I have no intention of controlling this or any other thread for that matter. I suppose the first thing to consider is that there are many different types of socialism. Some are concerned with redistribution of wealth, some are concerned with the democratization of the economic sector, and some are concerned with the creation of a utopian society. Of these, I want to discuss the second because the first one is more or less a stopgap measure and the third is ludicrous. If people want to move in a different direction, that's fine with me. My hope is that eventually we can discuss this stuff right now to the everyday language we use (and thus may have some value to writers). Engels said that socialism is running a country like a factory. I disagree. It's the other way around. Socialism is about running a factory like a democratic country. It's about giving control to people who spend most of their waking lives at a place where they have little or no freedom. What's wrong with that? Hasn't anybody else wondered why we are alowed to vote for the people who will send us to war but not the people who determine whether we will have a job tomorrow? It seems that there is therefore a moral justification for socialism for if you believe in democracy in politics, why not in business? Ah, man I gotta stop now but I hope someone responds to this. My last post seems to have failed miserably, Brad |
||
| © Copyright 1999 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Just a short note, to feed the fires. Socialism in business? Positively senseless to think that is possible. I will not tout the virtues of Capitolism other that to say that history and America has proven that business can only succeed through capitolistic ideals - show me an economically vibrate socialist country. The US, while drifting painfully towards a socialist government (the news just reported that here in CA they are proposing a law that would make it illegal to smoke in YOUR OWN car if children are with you), is powered and supported by the capitolistic pigs of business. Carl Marx called for the workers to unite, the funny thing is, when they did, the nature of man took over and kabashed the whole thing. ------------------ Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hey, I got one post. Thanks, JP. Show me a true socialist country and then we can talk. Centralization around a small group and/or one man is not socialism. Actually, you can look at it, I think productively, by seeing a Communist country as an attempt to create one big factory. The old USSR was attempting to compete with the US and so forth in international politics. But if we talk about representative democracy, what's a stockholder's meeting? Originally, you had to own land in order to vote in America (as well as male and white). Most people argue that the trend to open up the political process is a good thing. My suggestion: why not open up the business sector as well? Karl did indeed want workers to unite. The funny thing about Karl though is that he never really studied the working class; he just assumed that they would be revolutionary. I always thought that was pretty funny. Rosa Luxumbourg (Red Rosy), on the other hand, did a Marxist analysis of trade unions that seems to me to be a pretty good analysis of relations within any particular union. So, your from California? What part? I'm originally from Magic Mountain country (Saugus). |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Well technically, I only live in California - the Sacramento area - I am from all over (father in the Army, I was in the army). This is my family's 'home base', since my mother's family migrated from Oklahoma to central CA in the 40's and my dads family migrated from New Mexico to the Lancaster area in the 50's. But what the heck does that have to do with Marxist philosophy? I dunno. I don't know much about Socialism really (I'm more of a Plato, Nietzche, Buddah kinda guy) - I just wanted to give this thread a kick in the pants. However, I do stand behind my words. Capitolism may be ugly, it may be divisional and seperatist, but it is the only true motivation for economic success. Which is the true strength of political success. ------------------ Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP |
||
|
Lolita Junior Member
since 1999-11-09
Posts 44Buffalo, NY, America |
All thoeries on anything to do with human behaviorand interaction are useless. You cannot run a country to the democratic, communist, socialist ar any other way of thinking because we are a diverse and benign race. We are, really quite dumb. The problem is not the way you run a society, but that you try to run a society. When ever something becomes organised it begins to self destruct naturally. It happens in all overgrown structures, even cell structers will hari kari if they are overpopulated. Why? To give the remaining cells the oppurtunity to survive. This does work in nature, not in human nature. We are too selfish to step aside, we are proud. It is this pride and selfishness, this ' if he won; why should I?' philosophy that means no society will be able to operate properly. I am actually dying here so you will have to finish the train of thought for me. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, that was a rather blanket statement. So, we should just give up on theorizing all together, shall we? The problem is that just isn't what people do. On a personal level, we make goals and try to manipulate people all the time to further those goals. Believe it or not, at the same time you've condemned theory in one grand sweep you have also contradicted yourself. If we are so diverse that all theory is bunk, how can you describe us as 'benign' and 'dumb' at the same time? I agree that if you take theory as the word of God, no questions asked, you're only getting yourself into trouble. Theory is really just a few simple questions: what kind of society do we want to live in? What is the best way to get there? At best, I suppose you could argue that it's more or guideline than a cookbook for good government. Still, with those limitations already understood, it doesn't make any sense to me to give up on all thinking. And that's no fun anyway. Brad |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
I think Lolita touched on an excellent point regarding our selfishness. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, Communism/Socialism/Marxism rests on the basic assumption that a collective will work for the betterment of the public utility. I know this is also part of Mill's premise and smells a bit of Humanism as well. I am admittedly more of a historian than a philosopher but it seems that failures in the such social experiments were direct results of those within the collective (particularly, but not limited to, the leadership) being more concerned with obtaining more power than with working for the benefit of the greater good. History demonstrates to me that man is everything BUT the altruist by nature. Altruism is a lofty goal and may even be obtainable by a few, but most people do not have the discipline to overcome selfishness and their "will to power" (especially without moral restraints in place in secularist societies). And this, I believe, is precisely why the Communist/Socialist model is unworkable. As far as mankind being "benign" ... NOT demonstrable historically. Without a strong moral conscience in place to restrain undesirable or harmful behavior, strong laws must be in place and this requires more power to law enforcement and it only watersheds (power corrupts) from there. As (moral) restraining forces weaken in a culture, government becomes more intrusive and begins to resemble the actual (as opposed to theoretical) Socialist or police state model. I think Nietzche's Ubermensch (Super Man) best describes the direction we human beings gravitate ... we end up better resembling Bram Stoker's Dracula in our hunger for power than Hesse's Sidhartha in our quest for harmony. This, Brad, is why I have serious doubts that the theoretical Socialist model will ever be reality. Good talk, folks. Comments? ------------------ Jim "If I rest, I rust." -Martin Luther |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Jbouder, having read both books you mention- Dracula and Siddartha- I must wonder why you think that humans are like the first and should aspire to be like the second. Siddartha found his "enlightenment" by leaving his human nature behind. He aspired to become more soul than body. Yet IMHO humans are both, body and soul, and to deny one is to not live as a human but to sin against your nature. Greed is as much human nature gone astray as when you chastise your body for needing food. Let's define capitalism here. Capitalism and greed and power-hunger are NOT the same thing. Greed is just interpreted as such and too often used as an attack point against rich ppl from more socialistically motivated ppl. But then again, not all rich ppl are capitalists. Some of them are just idle moochers who do not deserve the money cause they have not done anything to earn it. Capitalism and motivated productivity are what I would call synonyms. Capitalism is not the absence of a social way of thinking, it only doesn't promote the lawful stealing of other ppl's possessions. I would also like to include something I wrote a while ago for a debate club in London who dealt with the same issues for a few sessions. Sorry if it covers more or less the same issues I discussed in my own threat but it seems to fit here so excellently. Scenario: A beggar sits at the corner of a street asking for pennies. Another man passes by and refuses to give him those pennies. The police come and arrest that man. They tell him: Give the beggar the money with a certain percentage as a punishment for not paying immediately. The man still refuses. He is thrown into jail. Ridiculous? I agree. And I agree that the man could well have given the beggar a few pennies, but if he chose not to, does he deserve to go to prison for it? Yet this IS socialism of which some of you think it is not so bad! I know ppl do not like to live of charity but then why would they rather live of FORCED charity? It is a nice idea that should you get ill the state pays for your treatment. But did you ever consider where the state gets that money from? Yes that is right. From taxes. Ppl are forced to pay taxes so that others may have operations. Ok you say but what is bad about helping your fellow man? Nothing, I agree, I myself would immediately try and help a person in need. But do I want to be STRONG-ARMED to do such? NO! The constitution of America states that a man is free and has the right to possessions. If that is so, is it not also up to him to decide how to spend his money? How can any Government claim that its citizens are free if they are forced into paying for other ppl's lives? This forced charity doesn't stop at the medical care. No, nowadays it also pays for the sloppy and the lazy. And how? By the money of hardworking citizens. You wonder why everything is getting more and more expensive? Consider this: the more you tax a company the more expensive its products get. Inflation is a natural occurrence of socialism. You tax the oil companies out of existence yet you scream the ppl need more gas. You complain that your economy is sluggish. Oh? Not enough work-willing rich cows to milk? Why should any one WANT to work if from what he earns he may keep far less than even half? Why should any one want to work if he can get a good living from the "state" without doing a thing? You might say but ppl ought to want to work for their fellow men's upkeep, it would be the altruistic thing to do. Sorry, but my family and I is whom I worry for first and if I have enough I might want to give to a charity cause I am a feeling and kind person. I don't want to be MADE to "give" to charity FIRST and then see how I can live with the little I am allowed to keep. As for doctors leaving Canada… if I were a doctor I'd get the heck out of there too! In most cases a man or a woman wants to become a doctor cause they want to help ppl. Now with a national health system they not only work everyday to save lives but with the money they earn for it they also have to PAY for lives? And on top of that they are not even free to choose whom they want to treat and whom not? A doctor would hardly turn away a suffering person but to not even have the RIGHT to if he so chooses? Socialism is supposed to mean for the greater good of society. But what is society? It is not an entity, not an individual. Yet only individuals have rights. How can the right of that individual be trampled on for the good of "society"? How can any individual be asked to make a sacrifice for "society"? Society is after all just a collection of INDIVIDUALS. No group should have more power OR rights than the single rights of each of its members. You say what then about the minorities? Well, the individual is the smallest minority there is! As for the constitution being outdated? How can you possibly think that the right to freedom, possession and the pursuit of happiness could EVER be outdated? The RIGHT to a car? You only have the right to freedom, possession and the pursuit of happiness. You do however NOT have the RIGHT to a car. Unless you are willing to work and pay for it that is. Of course it will get harder and harder to earn enough money to buy that car if other ppl think just cause you have a car they have the RIGHT to a car too... Angel  ------------------ "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
To clarify my point in my last paragraph above, I did not suggest that the aspiration to be like Sidhartha, as opposed to the Nietchean ideal, was something one "ought" to strive to attain ... my statement was to be understood in the context I wrote it. A society of Sidharthas would be what it would take, in my estimation, for the Socialist/Humanist model to be a working one and this is precisely why I believe "true" Socialism to be fantasy. To broaden my statement beyond that context creates a bit of a straw man. Its the selfishness of men that prevents Socialism from working, in my opinion. If men were by nature selfless, then that would be an entirely different matter. I, personally, think that it is noble of a man to both look out for his self and, at the same time, exercise an ability to restrain himself from abusing any power and influence he attains along the way. I don't think governing bodies should police his actions unless those actions amount to criminal offenses (fraud, defamation, extortion, etc ...). Replys? ------------------ Jim "If I rest, I rust." -Martin Luther |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Very interesting points on all sides. If I may, I would like to present some case-in-points. 1) While in Budapest, Hungary, 1990, the majority of taxi drivers were medical doctors. They chose to drive taxis as a way of making more money, for medicine is socialized, and the rates, if any, are set. 2) The present shortages in our American system stem mainly from special interest contracts and favored nation statises. Instead of growing our own coffee, we pay another country to grow it for us; same with cane sugar, bananas, coconuts, rubber, etc. These programs, started during the 30's and 40's as a means of gaining local economic control in another territory or country still live and thrive today, and Heaven help the man who dares to mess with it. We have scads of oil and natural gas deposits in Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska, to name a few areas in the U.S. Yet, due to wheeling and dealing, most of our oil comes via OPEC, who has in the past placed a strangle-hold on the flow to shore up personal revenues, while bankrupting local oil businesses. Farmers are subsidized, and paid not to grow certain crops...and they comply...easy money. Instead of trying a different crop and selling it on the open market, they sit back with their usual fields and suckle on the government teat. 3) The democratic socialism within this country during the 60's and 70's...even deep in the 80's, made it more profitable to sit at home, act belligerant at job interview, stay in jail, and have a profligacy of illegitimate children. Welfare then had a lot more perks than did the working man's rut. Due to the welfare reforms, this is starting to come to an end, much to the dismay of those who had a good life coasting on the government's coat-tails. Now, I'm in no way trashing this country. It is not the best in the world, nor is it the worst...more like somewhere above middle. One of the few ways to escape this constriction upon national growth would be to dissolve ineffectual bureaucracies, combining some of the others, and downsizing and streamlining the rest. I realize this would mean higher temporary unemployment, and noone likes to be fired. But sooner or later, draconian measures are going to be needed to pull this stagnant country out of its self-made mire... ...hmmm...I seem to have gotten carried away, not to mention meandering off the topic's path...oops... Alicat the gruntled |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Jbouder I only jumped on that cart cause selfishness/selflessness has extensively been discussed in my own thread. I wondered if you were thinking of Dracula as the embodiment of Capitalism and Siddartha as the embodiment of Socialism? Hesse is one of my favourite authors and ironically to all those who have read my posts ( ) Siddartha is one of my favourite books. It is a beautiful fairytale and I love the descriptiveness in it. But (and I have argued this before) I do not see what it promotes as a virtue but as a bad waste of potential. Weirdly enough Siddartha is a very self-centred person yet he is also totally selfless. At least in the beginning and the end. He searches for a way to fulfil his "self" by leaving precisely that self. Yet by doing that he concerns himself only with him SELF. Does that somehow not sound like socialism? People think that fulfilment of the soul is to be found in catering to others. And for a very rare few this might even work. But for this to work your own ego must have no other inherent wish than to live for others. Yet as soon as your ego demands this of you, you are no longer selfless. So I say: soul know thy self and do not accept the ways of the "saints" as your own. Besides if we WERE all Siddarthas and would follow the rules of being humble and not catering for ourselves, who would we beg to put food in our pail? We would still be gatherers and live like our ancestors, in caves.Totally off the subject, I know and I apologise to Brad for that Angel ------------------ "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand [This message has been edited by Angel Rand (edited 11-18-1999).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Nothing wrong with tangents in my opinion. When I first started this thread (I had been thinking about it ever since you began your Objectivist one), I was simply unsure where to begin. Basic Marxist theory? How Socialists actually see themselves? Why doesn't socialist economics work? Do I complain about the total reliance on 'nature' when it comes to extolling the strength of capitalism when really that's nothing but ideology (in a Marxist sense)? Do I try to maintain an orthodox stance as some sort of devil's advocate game? It's a tough call. I just hope that we can all work on a number of different threads, on a number of different discussions and maybe a few of us can hear or think things that maybe we haven't thought before. For now, I just want to talk about the doctors versus taxi drivers argument. Socialism, or my understanding of it anyway, is not about making everyone equal but about allowing everyone to pursue their potential (Marx often talked about people with 'ability' rising to leadership positions). In a socialist system, the question would be put to the people asking if they thought this was a good thing? If not, resources within the economy would be redirected to improve the welfare of doctors and health care in general. The immediate problem here, of course, is people rarely mean what they say or say what they mean. It's always easy to say more, more, more without any understanding that any one 'more' is going to mean 'less' somewhere else. It's not that simple but I'll leave it like that for the moment. If you follow this argument, then aren't you in a sense saying that democratic government is also wrong. Heinlein has argued, for example, that any democratic government will eventually fail as soon as the people realize they can vote for anything they want. It becomes one big party. Socialism means taking responsibility for your actions. Capitalism is the illusion that you and other people don't control your lives. What is a market but a lot of people making decisions? Why pretend it's different? Socialism asks you to make those decisions before any particular production process begins. Not after. If you want clean, efficiency you are not going to get it in the initial stages of socialism. It's a democratic process and that's messy. Okay, why do I feel I've just way oversimplified all of this stuff, Brad |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Wow, I got here a little late Brad, I almost let the capitalist pigs overrun you Brad: "Engels said that socialism is running a country like a factory. I disagree. It's the other way around. Socialism is about running a factory like a democratic country. It's about giving control to people who spend most of their waking lives at a place where they have little or no freedom. What's wrong with that? Hasn't anybody else wondered why we are alowed to vote for the people who will send us to war but not the people who determine whether we will have a job tomorrow?" Well said Brad....and if any of you capitalist dogs out there mention the dollar vote, I'll snap Nothing worse than having to pay people to employ you, which is what big businesses seem to be doing to all of us not only in product but in taxpaying dollars.Paying is the burden and priviledge of the middle class yet all the sympathy goes to the poor and all the rewards to the wealthy.....that's it, I'm starting a revolution that is for the middle class....no more helping the poor or getting the wealthy more money.....from now on, I'm pro-middle class!!! JP: "I think Lolita touched on an excellent point regarding our selfishness. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, Communism/Socialism/Marxism rests on the basic assumption that a collective will work for the betterment of the public utility." Yes and Capitalism assumes that the workers will be submissive and passive for the betterment of the company. The world has already tried capitalism....it used to be called monarchy...the people didn't like it so most of the kings and queens died or died out....sometimes it was even called dictatorship. "History demonstrates to me that man is everything BUT the altruist by nature." I agree that we are not altruists but is that because of human nature or history/upbringing/and/or forced competative environment? Most animals are minimalists and don't practise greed....are we just the exception or has history brainwashed us into forgetting our instinctive societal protectiveness? "As far as mankind being "benign" ... NOT demonstrable historically." There are more examples of benevolent acts then there are malevolent(sp?) acts throughout history, maybe not on a country scale, but I believe on an individual level this to be true. Instinctively I believe we try to do more good than evil.....but I have no solid proof so I will try and keep and open mind. "Without a strong moral conscience in place to restrain undesirable or harmful behavior, strong laws must be in place and this requires more power to law enforcement and it only watersheds (power corrupts) from there. As (moral) restraining forces weaken in a culture, government becomes more intrusive and begins to resemble the actual (as opposed to theoretical) Socialist or police state model." Can't that also be said about capitalist business? As they become more powerful the gov't begins to resemble the company's ideal corperate model? "I think Nietzche's Ubermensch (Super Man) best describes the direction we human beings gravitate ... we end up better resembling Bram Stoker's Dracula in our hunger for power than Hesse's Sidhartha in our quest for harmony. This, Brad, is why I have serious doubts that the theoretical Socialist model will ever be reality." Personally I think all humans show all sides of humanity, that which makes us human. Sometimes we are good, sometimes bad, sometimes charitable, sometimes selfish and I think that's why the theoretical Socialist model may never work, because we don't give much lee-way for each other's sides and allow for human error....though they once said a man in space was impossible (BTW, socialism put the first person into space ).... leave the dreaming up to the idealist and the nuts and bolts to the realist....though the realist should thank the idealist for the idea of nuts and bolts Angel: "Scenario: A beggar sits at the corner of a street asking for pennies. Another man passes by and refuses to give him those pennies. The police come and arrest that man. They tell him: Give the beggar the money with a certain percentage as a punishment for not paying immediately. The man still refuses. He is thrown into jail. Ridiculous? I agree. And I agree that the man could well have given the beggar a few pennies, but if he chose not to, does he deserve to go to prison for it? Yet this IS socialism of which some of you think it is not so bad! I know ppl do not like to live of charity but then why would they rather live of FORCED charity? It is a nice idea that should you get ill the state pays for your treatment. But did you ever consider where the state gets that money from? Yes that is right. From taxes. Ppl are forced to pay taxes so that others may have operations. Ok you say but what is bad about helping your fellow man? Nothing, I agree, I myself would immediately try and help a person in need. But do I want to be STRONG-ARMED to do such? NO!" Angel how would you feel if the scenario was like; A wealthy man overturns his car and is hurt badly and will die unless he is taken to a hospital. A beggar passes by and refuses to help him unless he pays the beggar a thousand dollars in cash. The wealthy man doesn't have that kind of money on him so the beggar refuses to help him. The wealthy man unnecessarily dies....The police find the beggar and throw him into jail. Is that fair in any society? Is it fair a doctor can charge money to save a life and unfair a beggar do the same? Should that beggar be thrown in jail or looked upon as a true capitalist or just a plain old bastard? In some societies people do die because they lack the money for medical bills and doctors are allowed to refuse treatment unless paid in advance. "The constitution of America states that a man is free and has the right to possessions." Wasn't that constitution written when possesions also included human slaves as well??? I don't know, I'm not a big historian but I do know that following the past doesn't always bring about a happy future and vice versa as well. "Consider this: the more you tax a company the more expensive its products get. Inflation is a natural occurrence of socialism. You tax the oil companies out of existence yet you scream the ppl need more gas." Taxes don't usually make products more expensive, it's the profit margin that usually deems the price. Shareholders and company owners rarely are willing to take a decrease in salary yet they often ask it from the workers....In Canada some rich gov't tit had the gaul to tell Canadians having a hard time making ends meet to "suck it up a bit and start buying tuna." "As for doctors leaving Canada… if I were a doctor I'd get the heck out of there too! In most cases a man or a woman wants to become a doctor cause they want to help ppl. Now with a national health system they not only work everyday to save lives but with the money they earn for it they also have to PAY for lives?" I've never seen a doctor beg for change yet. Believe me no Canadian doctor lives like the poor unless by their own doing. "And on top of that they are not even free to choose whom they want to treat and whom not? A doctor would hardly turn away a suffering person but to not even have the RIGHT to if he so chooses?" I thought we had God and judges to determine who shall live and who shall die. I guess next you'll be saying police should be able to decide who to help and who not to help.....if they had a choice who do you think would get the best police coverage??? The people who need it the most???? Should they not stop murders if it's poor people killing poor people???? "Socialism is supposed to mean for the greater good of society. But what is society? It is not an entity, not an individual. Yet only individuals have rights. How can the right of that individual be trampled on for the good of "society"?" How can you justify one person's rights over many people's rights?....I mean if society is nothing more than a group of individuals, who agree on certain issues, then doesn't the thousand individual's rights, who agree on the same thing, super-ceed the singular individual? If we were to solely protect the individual then million's of rights would be violated to protect one person's rights. If a singular person should be protected at the expense of millions then I see no need for a democracy of anykind to exist. "As for the constitution being outdated? How can you possibly think that the right to freedom, possession and the pursuit of happiness could EVER be outdated?" Please refer back to my slavery comment. Times change and so should laws governing the limitations of people for people don't always practise good and good doesn't always make people happy....perhaps it should be changed to the pursuit of goodness??? BRAD: "Socialism means taking responsibility for your actions. Capitalism is the illusion that you and other people don't control your lives. What is a market but a lot of people making decisions? Why pretend it's different? Socialism asks you to make those decisions before any particular production process begins. Not after. If you want clean, efficiency you are not going to get it in the initial stages of socialism. It's a democratic process and that's messy." I agree and will elaborate a bit as well, each are trying to achieve the same thing but by different means. One values society as the greatest assest and the other, the individual. Both should rely on true democracy and let the decision rest on the people's sholders. I just hope no one out there is just trying to justify greed. Anyways, I hope I didn't rub you all the wrong way too much, thanks for the inspiration and take care, Trevor |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Trevor, You don't have to worry about me, comrade. I 'm used to those Imperialist running dogs and their brainwashing techniques. I just want everybody to understand that Trevor and I are not talking about nationalization of industries as such nor are we talking about a non-democratic form of government. We are talking about giving more responsibility to people to decide their collective welfare. This, as far as I can tell, doesn't mean you have to force anybody to do anything. Is it difficult? Is representative democracy difficult? Now, there are some big time problems with the model presented so far but nobody has yet touched on them. One: do people truly believe in representative democracy? I suspect they do not. Otherwise, why do so few people vote and why do even less people vote in local elections which have in theory more direct impact on your everyday lives. Do people, in general, even want to control their own lives (or at least have a say) or do they prefer to do nothing and then complain. National and state elections aside, you can make a difference locally. Two: Are there still residual side effects of an authoritarian system in the West where people implicity believe that those in power are somehow more competent to run things than they are? I'm not talking about the 'nuts and bolts' or someone who demonstrably has a stronger argument for a position but a sense of mysticism. A sense that 'they' somehow 'know more than you'. Three: Believe it or not, this system allows people to excell in a number of different positions individually. It's really about allowing people to reach their potential, not bringing them down (although there is a strand of socialism that does argue for this type of equality, I'll talk about that later). The problem is do people really want that kind of freedom. I recently asked a friend what was the question that seems to be asked by high school students. They are told, in the USA, that they can do anything, be anything, and yet how many people don't know what that is in the first place? They ask: What do I want to do? Objectivism (just an example Angel ) tells us to fulfill ourselves but doesn't tell us what that fulfillment should be. This 'freedom' combined with the idea that there is only one path, one goal that must be reached, one decision that must be made is terrifying to many people. Socialism in an ideal form is really an attempt at diversity, of allowing people to (I don't remember the exact quote) to farm in the morning, fish in the afternoon, work in the factory before dinner, and talk philosophy in the evening (or something like that). If you know what you want to do and can convince other people that you can do it well, then socialism, within limits, would allow you to do that as well.Four: Is socialism about a collective? Sure, but what nobody seems to realize is that you already live in a collective. A collective ruled by an owner (within limits -- hard earned limits in America which had, believe it or not, the most violent labor relations of any country). Can you start another collective in socialism? Again, I don't see why not. Convince people that what you do is a good thing and you'll get financing like any good capitalist. If it succeeds, can you still get voted out of office. Isn't that what happens in a representative democracy? A lot of people have had good ideas in democracies and then lost their jobs (and sometimes regained them). Five: Language. I don't know about anyone else here but I read and hear language everyday that props up a capitalist system. Ron (know your busy) has mentioned that capitalism most directly mimics nature. I want to see a concrete example of how capitalism mimics nature. What equilibrium (if there is one in nature. I'm not yet convinced by either you or Trevor on that one) exists in capitalism? It is either expanding or contracting; I don't believe that there can ever be any equilibrium in capitalism although Friedman would disagree with me. Other people have discussed that human nature won't go for socialism; we're too greedy. But socialism is about all of us trying to understand that we are greedy but that it is in our best interests to decide, discuss, and argue over what is best for us in the long and short terms. And now were back to Objectivism. I would go so far to argue that Angel Rand's definition of Objectivism and my (and almost Trevor's) definition of socialism go hand in hand. But I could be wrong Brad |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Trevor: You assume far too much. I believe my statements were a critique of the theoretical socialist model, not an apology for capitalism. Capitalism, however, unlike socialism, does not rely on the assumption that individuals in a collective will work for the betterment of the public utility. As a philosophy (as it pertains to human nature), I believe it is, therefore, a more valid system than theoretical socialism. This does NOT mean that I am a capitalist. Capitalism is most definitely NOT free of unsightly boils and sores. Abuses of the Robber Barons and immoral labor practices are unsightly chapters in American history. In many ways, I agree, corporate America resembles totalitarianism. But this, I believe, is not a result of the Capitalist model but, rather, a result of human nature. Citizens of Communist/Socialist nations are just as selfish as citizens of Capitalist ones. I agree that "nurture" plays a role, but it plays a subordinate role to "nature". Capitalism may compound our tendency toward Dracula-likeness but is not the cause of it. That same nature, I believe, is what brings out the Dracula-likeness of Socialist leaders in every case of which I am aware. As far as human benevolence is concerned, I concede that there are many benign actions. I, had I the data, would even concede that benign actions outweight malevolent actions. But this does not address the question of "selfishness". How many "benign" acts are also truly selfless? Very few, I am willing to wager. Many of the good things we do are done in hopes of recognition or reward. Without these incentives, I would argue that you would see drastic reduction in the benign acts. The "selfless" benign acts would, I believe, be the exception rather than the rule. So what? Theoretical Socialism stands or falls, I believe, on the human capability to put the collective over self. Capitalism doesn't. But BOTH systems, without moral restraint, result in abuses of power. This does not make Capitalism better than Socialism as a model, just more valid philosophically speaking, I believe. Selflessness is not a necessary element of Capitalism. If it was then I believe that Capitalism, like theoretical Socialism, would fail. I, like Brad, "could be wrong". I know it is very unphilosophic of me to want to see "evidence" (God forbid!) of theoretical Socialism's merits but, oh well, just a personal flaw, I guess . It (Socialism), I believe, makes the same "oops" as humanism, that mistake being their understanding of human nature. You commies are in good company, though. Pelagius and Erasmus both made the same mistakes . The Puritans even tried a form of Socialism in America in the 1600's and almost starved when food was gathered and cultivated by families for the collective rather than by families for families (nobody wanted to work ... nature or nurture? Interesting, huh?) Thanks for the thoughts, guys. This is fun. There truly is nothing new under the sun, as the Preacher says (see Ecclesiastes)! ------------------ Jim "If I rest, I rust." -Martin Luther [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 11-22-1999).] |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Trevor, From your tone in recent postings I get the impression that you might be feeling a little aggressive toward my ideas and me. I am sorry if I stated my opinions in a way that offended you. That was never my intention. However, although I am sure you mean this as a joke, I would rather not be referred to as a dog or pig. I am a capitalist that much is true so call me that any day . " Most animals are minimalists and don't practise greed....are we just the exception or has history brainwashed us into forgetting our instinctive societal protectiveness?" No animal is altruistic and they are all supremely selfish. "... leave the dreaming up to the idealist and the nuts and bolts to the realist....though the realist should thank the idealist for the idea of nuts and bolts" I think you need a very practical mind to come up with anything that works today. So no I think it is the realist who is to be thanked for nuts and bolts. The idealist would WISH his car to stay together and would wonder why it wont, where as the realist will know exactly why and how to fix it too. " Is that fair in any society? Is it fair a doctor can charge money to save a life and unfair a beggar do the same? Should that beggar be thrown in jail or looked upon as a true capitalist or just a plain old bastard? In some societies people do die because they lack the money for medical bills and doctors are allowed to refuse treatment unless paid in advance." You think a doctor should not charge money for his services? And why do you think doctors need to be paid? Maybe cause otherwise they cannot pay their taxes AND live decently? And yes it does suck that ppl die if they cannot pay in advance. Better (voluntary!) charity should be available. " Wasn't that constitution written when possessions also included human slaves as well??? I don't know, I'm not a big historian but I do know that following the past doesn't always bring about a happy future and vice versa as well." Yes that is true. But was it not also written by the very countrymen who fought a war to abolish slavery? And just cause it was written in an imperfect time doesn't make its meaning or its content absolete. The constitution of the US is IMHO the greatest philosophical achievement of humankind. " Taxes don't usually make products more expensive, it's the profit margin that usually deems the price. Shareholders and company owners rarely are willing to take a decrease in salary yet they often ask it from the workers..." I do agree that taking it from the workers who would make your product is wrong and not in the companies best interest. But it IS the taxes that make this happen. And profit margin is really up to the company. If they get too expensive ppl will stop buying. That is the only thing that will and should keep companies in check. Japanese companies have seen this long ago and taken over the market by offering cheaper products. And ppl buy that. No one can afford American products cause taxes make production too expensive. (but to be truthful I know very little about Japanese business strategies or social programs so I won't get into that.) " Believe me no Canadian doctor lives like the poor unless by their own doing." Here in England the NH doctors live decently too. But not one of them above decent. " I thought we had God and judges to determine who shall live and who shall die." The Hippocratic oath determines that a doctor has to help ppl. And that oath is taken of your own FREE WILL. Those in breach of that oath should be tried and judged by fellow doctors but not by a normal court as the oath is of ethical and not lawful concern. " How can you justify one person's rights over many people's rights" Name one incident where one person's inalienable rights were put above the right of the many. And I am not talking about the current abuse of what ppl LIKE to call rights but what truly IS an inalienable right. "I mean if society is nothing more than a group of individuals, who agree on certain issues, then doesn't the thousand individual's rights, who agree on the same thing, super-ceed the singular individual?" Oh so if I rally round a thousand ppl and we all vote to have a person killed cause we don't like him or her, the poor individual is voted out of his or her right to life? But would that not also mean that ANY ONE of those thousand voting ppl could also be voted out of his or her life. So you see if you ensure the rights of an individual you ensure the rights of the many. But if rights apply only to the many, the ONE has no rights on his or her own. But then the question is how many ppl do I need around me to get some rights? Would just my family be enough or does it have to be the whole village? When do the "I alone have no rights" become " we have rights cause we are the ppl? Does it have to be the majority of the citizens of any given country? Or what? "perhaps it should be changed to the pursuit of goodness???" So in the face of overall goodness its ok that some ppl might suffer and live like in a prison? Again this would say that you are only allowed to feel happiness when everybody else is. That would also say if you alone out of your circle of friends fell in love for example, you would not be allowed to feel happy cause they do not. You may only be happy when you have produced a girlfriend for each of your friends. Must say who needs enemies if he has friends that would expect that of you. "I just hope no one out there is just trying to justify greed." As I stated in my own thread capitalism is not about greed. And those who are greedy are as close to capitalism as Marx. Brad "But socialism is about all of us trying to understand that we are greedy but that it is in our best interests to decide, discuss, and argue over what is best for us in the long and short terms. And now were back to Objectivism. I would go so far to argue that Angel Rand's definition of Objectivism and my (and almost Trevor's) definition of socialism go hand in hand. No sorry Brad. Objectivist will tell you that greed is a symptom of an irrational mind. Money takes the place of true fulfilment. But that will never bring self-fulfilment. Cause money in itself is not an achievement but a by-product of achievement (sometimes). A capitalist is not after money but after free production. And no, not production of money but of products. And why? Cause production and marketing is what makes him happy. But this is just an example. I am an artist and I want nothing more than to paint. Yet I am a capitalist. Cause I believe that production is what makes the economy go 'round and what makes most ppl in this world achieve a decent living standard. Jbouder: "Capitalism is most definitely NOT free of unsightly boils and sores. Abuses of the Robber Barons and immoral labor practices are unsightly chapters in American history. " Abuse and capitalism are not the same. I maintain that capitalism is the only political standpoint that would never step on anyone's right and therefore not on a society's right either. As a final statement, IMHO no philosophy that would be implemented by the human race and that could only work in theory is worth the paper it is written on; unless it never pretended to be anything but a science fiction or fantasy novel. from Angel------------------ "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand [This message has been edited by Angel Rand (edited 11-22-1999).] |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello everyone, ANGEL: "Trevor, From your tone in recent postings I get the impression that you might be feeling a little aggressive toward my ideas and me." I'm sorry if you feel that way, I like you, am just trying to express my thoughts on a subject and unfortunately at the present our thoughts are at different ends of the spectrum. I'm not trying to be right nor am I locked in a competition with you. I have nothing against you and will readily admit you have brought up some great and interesting things throughout this debate and I owe you a thanks for making me think and inspiring many of my thoughts. So with all that said, please except my apoligies if you feel that I have been attacking you for this is not my intention, I have enjoyed this conversation immensely. And now to begin my bashing....ooops I mean rebuttal "However, although I am sure you mean this as a joke, I would rather not be referred to as a dog or pig. I am a capitalist that much is true so call me that any day." All I can say is lighten up a bit Angel, it was most definetely a little joke. "No animal is altruistic and they are all supremely selfish." Yes but I don't think Communism is altruistic. In a Communist society people are still working for themselves. They work hard so others will work hard for them, working to make a better society for themselves. People would still invent things, they'd invent it so they could have one and so others could build it and have one as well. If everyone's quality of life goes up, so would yours, not just financially but also concerning all aspects of society. "I think you need a very practical mind to come up with anything that works today. So no I think it is the realist who is to be thanked for nuts and bolts. The idealist would WISH his car to stay together and would wonder why it wont, where as the realist will know exactly why and how to fix it too." Actually throughout history many an invention had been read about in fiction long before someone actually invented it. ONe example is 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, the submarine hadn't even been considered a possibility before the dreamer thought of it first. The idealist would dream of a car and the realist would build it....was a vehicle written about first or built first? "You think a doctor should not charge money for his services? And why do you think doctors need to be paid? Maybe cause otherwise they cannot pay their taxes AND live decently? And yes it does suck that ppl die if they cannot pay in advance. Better (voluntary!) charity should be available." Not once did I say a doctor shouldn't charge money for their service in a capitalist/socialist society....the question was trying to present was, should anyone be allowed to charge money to help someone if they want, should a "bum" be allowed to charge a doctor, money in advance, if the doctor is in dire need of the "bum's" assistance? Is that not the same as what some doctors do? No one's stopping these doctors from doing more charity work. "Yes that is true. But was it not also written by the very countrymen who fought a war to abolish slavery? And just cause it was written in an imperfect time doesn't make its meaning or its content absolete. The constitution of the US is IMHO the greatest philosophical achievement of humankind." Were the founders of the constitution still alive for the civil war? I think most of them were dead by then? Honestly I don't know, I don't know a lot about American History, just curious. And I agree, the constitution is a great piece of paper and philosophy that still holds some water and I think when we all turn communist it will make a fine addition to our gov't I believe the same human rights and privilages could be had in a true communist society."I do agree that taking it from the workers who would make your product is wrong and not in the companies best interest. But it IS the taxes that make this happen." Personally I think both of us are a little off on this one, I think there is more to the cost of products then just taxes and profit margins....especially when dealing with a world market. This is a little off topic but a thought just occured to me. You've said in the past about fair exchanges, work for pay, item for pay. Now say you work for a comp. that makes one million in profit and pays you 20 dollars an hour, that's a pretty good exchange, I would even call that fair. Now if that is a "fair" exchange then is it still fair if the company the next year makes 3 million in profits and your wage only goes up one dollar. If twenty at a million is fair then how can 21 at 3 million be fair, shouldn't the worker's wage co-relate with a company's profit in order to keep it fair? If a book price is a fair exchange at 7.50 for a 200 page novel then if the book price goes up to 8.50 shouldn't ya get a few more pages in order for the "fairness" to remain? I don't know...just thought I'd ramble this out. "Here in England the NH doctors live decently too. But not one of them above decent." And if you'd just embrace Communism we could all live above decent Ya I know, it wasn't a very good rebuttal but I'm running thin on material "The Hippocratic oath determines that a doctor has to help ppl. And that oath is taken of your own FREE WILL. Those in breach of that oath should be tried and judged by fellow doctors but not by a normal court as the oath is of ethical and not lawful concern." Yeah I agree, only a heatless doctor could let someone die for the sake of money. But I think it should be a written law and not just a boy-scoutish pledge and they should be tried in a court of law. It's pretty close to murder, maybe it is murder?? but that's debatable. "Name one incident where one person's inalienable rights were put above the right of the many. And I am not talking about the current abuse of what ppl LIKE to call rights but what truly IS an inalienable right." Hitler, Pinochet, slavery, Tianimen Square....it was actually a few gov't officials squashing demonstrators and not the people squashing the students (there is sometimes a difference between gov'ts and the people), Bill Clinton, Jean Chretian, all the fat cat MP's in Canada, the Queen of England, the Pope, and anyone else who has too much power for their own good. I don't know if this really falls into your definition of what rights and inalienable rights are....shouldn't it be open to interpretation in order to protect the rights of the individual?....rights are just words, we all think we deserve different ones but do we really? I don't know, thought I'd just pop out that question? What do you think the gov't would be like in a true capitalist society? Who would own them? I'm pretty sure the businesses would (as if they don't already) and then they would become the gov't (as if they aren't already). This is what scares me most about capitalism, the profiteers deciding on how and how much profit they can make. Now I'm all for protecting the rights of the individual and the rights of a society, both at the same time and I believe that in a communist society it could work.....same laws could apply. Why do you think that in a true capitalist society the rights of the individual would be secured? History has shown that it has failed to protect the rights of the individual in a capitalist society...ie. Monarchy(think of it as a monopolized company)....land barons, etc. "Oh so if I rally round a thousand ppl and we all vote to have a person killed cause we don't like him or her, the poor individual is voted out of his or her right to life?" Not a fan of the death penalty? If someone causes more harm then good should they not be put to death for the benefit of all people and should not all have a decision in this process. Lets take Charles Bundy, who is now dead, should he have been allowed to live because it is his right? Or does one forfiet their right to life when they unjustly take anothers? Now I don't know how you've come up with the idea that in a true communist society people would just begrudge people and try to vote them to the death penalty for nothing....hurting individuals without just cause in a true communist society would only be detramental to all within the society. That is to say, killing unnecessarily in any society is harmful to all and in a communist society you'd only be lowering your living standard. USA is a democratic country (or masquerades as one, just like Canada) yet no one goes around voting for the average person to be put to death because they've done nothing wrong. "So you see if you ensure the rights of an individual you ensure the rights of the many. But if rights apply only to the many, the ONE has no rights on his or her own. But then the question is how many ppl do I need around me to get some rights? Would just my family be enough or does it have to be the whole village? When do the "I alone have no rights" become " we have rights cause we are the ppl? Does it have to be the majority of the citizens of any given country? Or what?" I would like to ask you specifically what rights are you referring to when you say the rights of the individual? and what rights does a society have that does not apply to an individual? Honestly I'm just curious. I guess you don't like the democratic process....any other suggestions for change? How would a true capitalist country make decisions for it's people...based on profit???? Would this ensure the individual's rights or would there be a lot of sacraficial lambs for the sake of the company? I think (and forgive me if I'm wrong) we are both fans of self gov't but do you think that most people would be up to the task? Is it the laws that make people kill and steal right now? I dunno. "So in the face of overall goodness its ok that some ppl might suffer and live like in a prison? Again this would say that you are only allowed to feel happiness when everybody else is. That would also say if you alone out of your circle of friends fell in love for example, you would not be allowed to feel happy cause they do not. You may only be happy when you have produced a girlfriend for each of your friends. Must say who needs enemies if he has friends that would expect that of you." Where are you coming up with this prison thing and all people having to be happy at the same time and all people thinking the same? That's not what communism is about. All I said is that people should be pursuing "goodness", and perhaps they'll achieve their happiness that way. You are starting to make it sound like a cult, all communism is share the workload, equally and share the product, equally. It has nothing to do with if you are in a good or bad mood or if one person is married and one isn't (people aren't product and neither is emotions). Does an inventor work more than a builder or do they just work differently? And yes for overall goodness it is okay for some people to rot in prison if they deserve such....should we let Charles Manson out because we are violating his rights???? In Canada, a youth under 18 is protecting from having their name in print so that his rights of privacy are protected...what about the rights of the victim? Should people's rights be squashed for the individual or are their instances when the individual must suffer so that a whole society doesn't? "As I stated in my own thread capitalism is not about greed. And those who are greedy are as close to capitalism as Marx." I believe capitalism and communism are both about greed but take very different paths. I do believe that everything we do is selfish even if it is a "selfless" act....but what is better, being selfish and helping a lot of people so that a lot of people will help you or being selfish and pretty much just helping yourself or selected individuals who are deemed worthy of help. Anyways Angel there's my rant, I honestly am not attacking you are your beliefs....I thought this was a subject open to debate so if I've offended you some how please accept my apoligies but don't ask me to change my opinions if you don't care for them. Take care. BRAD: "You don't have to worry about me, comrade. I 'm used to those Imperialist running dogs and their brainwashing techniques." Just repeat after me buddy....Sharing is good, sharing is good, sharing is good,sharing is good. There that ought to brainwash....ummmm, I mean help you stay focused "Now, there are some big time problems with the model presented so far but nobody has yet touched on them. One: do people truly believe in representative democracy? I suspect they do not. Otherwise, why do so few people vote and why do even less people vote in local elections which have in theory more direct impact on your everyday lives. Do people, in general, even want to control their own lives (or at least have a say) or do they prefer to do nothing and then complain. National and state elections aside, you can make a difference locally. " Personally I do think people believe in a representative democracy but I think people are just fed-up with the fact that it seems they are not being represented by anyone, anymore....perhaps they practise the "NO-VOTE" as an expression of their leariness of greedy little politicians. I think people do want to control their own lives but feel they can't and are disallusioned that they can't make a difference....how many times have you heard during elections, "Who you voting for?" the reply, "I'm not because it doesn't matter who is elected, they're all the same.". I know I've heard things like that thousands of times. "Two: Are there still residual side effects of an authoritarian system in the West where people implicity believe that those in power are somehow more competent to run things than they are? I'm not talking about the 'nuts and bolts' or someone who demonstrably has a stronger argument for a position but a sense of mysticism. A sense that 'they' somehow 'know more than you'." They do don't they??? Actually I just wanted to say that this was an excellent point and I do believe that people have been conned into thinking that they don't make a difference and that big-brother knows best...it creeps into the workplace as well....like no one here can do their boss's job."Socialism in an ideal form is really an attempt at diversity, of allowing people to (I don't remember the exact quote) to farm in the morning, fish in the afternoon, work in the factory before dinner, and talk philosophy in the evening (or something like that). If you know what you want to do and can convince other people that you can do it well, then socialism, within limits, would allow you to do that as well." ....and write poetry on the weekends ...and it can be yours for the introductory low price of $19.99...and with socialism we'll throw in, for absolutely no extra charge, a greedy leader to botch it all up "Five: Language. I don't know about anyone else here but I read and hear language everyday that props up a capitalist system. Ron (know your busy) has mentioned that capitalism most directly mimics nature. I want to see a concrete example of how capitalism mimics nature. What equilibrium (if there is one in nature. I'm not yet convinced by either you or Trevor on that one) exists in capitalism? It is either expanding or contracting; I don't believe that there can ever be any equilibrium in capitalism although Friedman would disagree with me. Other people have discussed that human nature won't go for socialism; we're too greedy. But socialism is about all of us trying to understand that we are greedy but that it is in our best interests to decide, discuss, and argue over what is best for us in the long and short terms. And now were back to Objectivism." Well I've been pondering this whole nature thing again....If man exists, he is part of nature and all his actions are natural even though they are sometimes extremely different from all else that exists in nature. So all our thoughts and schemes and trinkets are a natural extension of man. It's as natural for a bird to fly as it is for a fish to swim.....am I making any sense, I'm being pretty vague but I think ya get the picture. And that's that my pink friend, I'll talk to ya later, take care. JBOUDER: "You assume far too much. I believe my statements were a critique of the theoretical socialist model, not an apology for capitalism. Capitalism, however, unlike socialism, does not rely on the assumption that individuals in a collective will work for the betterment of the public utility." Yep, I admit I do assume too much sometimes and you're right about my statement regarding why people work in a capitalist society...what I said there wasn't very well thought out...oh well, I communicate to learn. "But this, I believe, is not a result of the Capitalist model but, rather, a result of human nature." I must agree too, but all things both good and bad within human society is a direct result of human nature. But capitalism is all about having more than everyone else, so with that in mind, how doesn't this promote the "evil" side of humans. That is to say if one company has 200 trillion in assests then the other companies strive to make 300 trillion and so forth and so on. It promotes monopolies and a belief that one must have it all to "win"....but the thing is I don't think there is a winner. "I agree that "nurture" plays a role, but it plays a subordinate role to "nature". Capitalism may compound our tendency toward Dracula-likeness but is not the cause of it. That same nature, I believe, is what brings out the Dracula-likeness of Socialist leaders in every case of which I am aware." Nuture is natural just as is a "Dracula" likeness but I'd like to see nuture become more prevelant than the other. Unfortunately it seems either "absolute power corrupts absolutely" or we don't have enough laws preventing the "blood suckers" from getting so much power in any society. I gotta cut it short but I'll finish my thoughts a little later. Thanks for your response and take care. THANK YOU ALL, Trevor |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Brad said: quote: Obviously this is going to depend a great deal on your definition of equilibrium. You're right - scientifically, the only true balance is "heat death," where entropy has run its ultimate course. If you look at any natural phenomenon at any given second in time, it is going to be out of balance. But, generally, we look at statistical averages rather than discrete moments. For example, your body, at this precise instant in time, is almost surely out of balance. It has too much or too little insulin, too many or too few hormones, too many or too few growing cells. But it also has feedback mechanisms in place to cure those ills. Take a bite of a donut and your body squirts a little extra insulin into your blood system to help process the sugars. Looked at over the course of a few minutes, a few hours, and certainly over a 24 hour period, a healthy human body is in almost perfect balance. If it's not, and nothing is done to correct the balance, the body dies - which is just another type of balance. Indeed, everything in the Universe is in balance by this definition. It's just a matter of the time factor you use. If you believe in a Closed Universe, as many scientists do, then the Universe is in balance. It's been expanding for about five billion years, will probably do so for another five billion years, and then will begin to contract for about 10 billion years. Perfect balance - but over a very long period of time. I think that capitalism more closely mimics nature than socialism does because it has built in regulators (natural laws recognized but not made by man) that accomplish two things: they lessen the time factor between swings, and insure to a far greater extent that the originating system is maintained. Let me give a concrete example. The majority of people get together and decide that doctors are money-hungry golf fanatics and don't deserve a few hundred grand a year. They vote that all doctors will now make $20 an hour. The results are fairly predictable: without the motivation of personal gain and esteem (equally important, I think), few people will devote 12 years of their life to becoming doctors. Within six years (statistically) there will be serious shortage of health care. The laws will either be changed (and you still have six more years of shortages) or the entire socialist system will collapse under its own ineptitude. In either case, a balance will be reached. But the balance takes a long time and can result in a lot of destruction. The flip side: I own a hospital and decree that all doctors that want to work for me will make $20 an hour. Fifteen minutes later I'm either out of business or have changed my tune rather drastically, 'cause all my doctors have taken a hike. Balance is achieved again - but more quickly and with far less destruction (except, of course, to my ego). The Law of Supply and Demand that both insures I pay my employees what they are worth and don't charge too much for my product or service is the same natural law that determines the growth of an organism in the wild. If there are too many wolves and not enough deer this year, you can be real sure there'll be less wolves next year. Supply and Demand. Now, if you happen to be a wolf, you're probably going to think that law sucks. And on a microscopic level, say within a few square acres of your wooded area, you might get away with adjusting it. You might even save a few furry lives. But on a macroscopic level there are still going to be less wolves next year. The problem with socialism is that it thinks it can make adjustments to the laws of nature. It can't, any more than Congress can pass a statute limiting gravity (I'd love to lose a few quick pounds). Of course, I'll quickly add that science doesn't understand Supply and Demand as well as it does gravity (and we know almost nothing about that). We don't always know what is going to work - so we have to experiment. We do, however, know a whole passel of things that absolutely won't work (on that macroscopic level). And we are very foolish wolves, indeed, when we keep passing man-made laws that conflict with natural ones. 'Cause Nature always wins. |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Hi Trevor As I said, I knew it was meant as a joke and I am not at all asking for you to change on my account. After all that would be curtailing you right to freedom of expression . It was just a friendly request. And on my part I do not feel the least bit aggressive. You have presented me some interesting points too, I would not so eagerly write if I did not enjoy exchanging ideas with you and the others in this forum. So no hard feelings on my side either. So now for the debating: " Where are you coming up with this prison thing and all people having to be happy at the same time and all people thinking the same?" Maybe I am not clear on what you mean by pursuit of goodness. I thought you mean to be good is to make sure everybody is happy and that way you can be happy too? If that is the case I just like to state that I believe that you can only make ppl happy when what you do makes you happy. And you can only make those ppl happy who can make themselves happy. In my life I have seen all too often that person A cannot give person B something person B lacks in him or her self. " Now if that is a "fair" exchange then is it still fair if the company the next year makes 3 million in profits and your wage only goes up one dollar. If twenty at a million is fair then how can 21 at 3 million be fair, shouldn't the worker's wage co-relate with a company's profit in order to keep it fair? If a book price is a fair exchange at 7.50 for a 200 page novel then if the book price goes up to 8.50 shouldn't ya get a few more pages in order for the "fairness" to remain? I don't know...just thought I'd ramble this out." Interesting question. I am not an economist. But I would say that it would have to depend on what the company does with its profit. Do they want to expand, reinvest etc. Also how much did the workers input have to do with their increase in profit, how many workers are there, can the products be continuously sold at the same price and what not else. As for the book thing… It again comes down to production costs and taxes. Probably a lot of other things too but I don't know that so well. I don't think that a few pages more would make a difference in price but a huge difference to context. Sometimes a novel is just finished. BTW I recently re-bought War and Peace and I noticed that the price HAD gone up but I was kinda relieved that it wasn't due to the increase of pages (Please take that tongue in cheek)"Yeah I agree, only a heatless doctor could let someone die for the sake of money. But I think it should be a written law and not just a boy-scoutish pledge and they should be tried in a court of law. It's pretty close to murder, maybe it is murder?? but that's debatable" You are right of course to be able to save someone's life from immediate danger and to not to cause of non-payment is murder (in some degree). And it should be tried in a court of justice. No matter if you are a doctor or a bum. I wasn't referring to life threatening scenarios but more to the everyday ingrown toenail GP kinda thing. " Not once did I say a doctor shouldn't charge money for their service in a capitalist/socialist society....the question was trying to present was, should anyone be allowed to charge money to help someone if they want," If your job is to help ppl then yes, you should be paid for it. Think of it this way: "I want to get some help for my backache. You Mr.Doctor can help me. But cause you can help me and I need your help you should not ask money for it." Errr… " Were the founders of the constitution still alive for the civil war? I think most of them were dead by then?" They probably were. But then again philosophy is a process and not ready-to-eat-microwaveable meal. It builds up on each other. And just because the ppl were flawed does not make the objectivity of that paper flawed. But I would be very interested to learn which one if any of these rights you find outdated? " The idealist would dream of a car and the realist would build it.... was a vehicle written about first or built first?" Nothing against dreamers, am one myself , but who should get the credit? Gene Roddenberry or the person who will make warp drive come true (if ever it will)?Name one incident where one person's inalienable rights were put above the right of the many. And I am not talking about the current abuse of what ppl LIKE to call rights but what truly IS an inalienable right." Hitler, Pinochet, slavery, Tianimen Square....it was actually a few gov't officials squashing demonstrators and not the people squashing the students (there is sometimes a difference between gov'ts and the people), Bill Clinton, Jean Chretian, all the fat cat MP's in Canada, the Queen of England, the Pope, and anyone else who has too much power for their own good. Before we go on I would like to say that the Queen of England has no power what so ever. In fact she is the most unfree and most powerless person I can think of. She lives a life in prison. Poor thing. Anyway, these ppl did not use their inalienable rights to get that power. That is precisely what I mean by: "And I am not talking about the current abuse of what ppl LIKE to call rights but what truly IS an inalienable right." The ppl who got killed by these horrors did not get killed because their killer's right was above theirs but because their rights never were inalienable. They got killed not because their killer made use of his inalienable rights but because he never recognised them. Your inalienable rights are as I stated in my own thread written down in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Which also ties in with your statement of monarchy. A monarchy is the absence of these inalienable rights. If men are born equal and free, this cannot be: "History has shown that it has failed to protect the rights of the individual in a capitalist society...ie. Monarchy (think of it as a monopolized company).... land barons, etc." I want to make it quite clear that I am an Objectivist (or an apprentice of it at least) first and a Capitalist second and only as a result of Objectivism. I am not saying that Capitalism gives you the rights I am talking about. I am saying that being an Objectivist and believing that the quoted paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is true, I can only see Capitalism that would be in keeping with this philosophy and the afore mentioned rights. I do wholeheartedly agree with anyone who says that as long as we do not have these rights "written in stone" Capitalism can do a lot of harm. As can democracy. Which brings me to another of your statements in your second last post: "I mean if society is nothing more than a group of individuals, who agree on certain issues, then doesn't the thousand individual's rights, who agree on the same thing, super-ceed the singular individual?" No. Inalienable rights mean just that. Inalienable. We are not talking about things like community building votes here. We are talking about votes that might strip a human being of his or her BASIC INALIENABLE rights. Hitler for example did not recognise his victims' rights. He never saw them as equal, nor free, nor in fact as human. Democracy very basically means that you make up rights as you go along. That what the majority deems as good is what is right. The minority can just "stuff" it. A democracy is a great and good thing as long as the rights of each of its citizens can not be outvoted. So when I put: "Oh so if I rally round a thousand ppl and we all vote to have a person killed cause we don't like him or her, the poor individual is voted out of his or her right to life?" You very rightly replied: " USA is a democratic country (or masquerades as one, just like Canada) yet no one goes around voting for the average person to be put to death because they've done nothing wrong." But why can't they? Cause ppl have an inalienable right to life. And I am not talking about criminals, although yes I am against the death penalty. But that would be subject for another thread (hey what a good idea! ) I am talking about those ppl who will respect the rights of others as much as their own. That is what Objectivism is all about btw. But the only reason I did put that statement there is to show you that if we have certain inalienable rights, these can and may not be superseded by the wishes of a majority. Or it might very well result in someone innocent being outvoted of their right to life. PHEW have to go and put some ice on my poor fingers. Shall be back later today, eagerly awaiting new thoughts. Hugs to ya all from your Angel ------------------ "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Gee, where do I begin: Ron your argument that there is balance in the universe doesn't persuade. By your definition 'balance' is, well, anything that happens because there is 'balance'. Give me a definition that doesn't include everything. When is something out of balance (by your definition, everything is out of balance at the same time -- hey, are you trained in dialectics? By the same definition, of course, socialism is also in 'balance' with respect to the universe. Events will still revolve around a certain 'equilibrium' as you pointed out in your own example. The hospital that pays 20$ an hour will eventually change because people will want to have higher quality health care. Your argument seems to be saying that capitalism is better because it is faster. Yet, what was the primary recovery stimulus for the Great Depression? It wasn't FDR's New Deal, it was the war. Now, things were restored and the economy became stronger but I'm not so sure I want to go through that if there is ever a crisis on that scale. Still, things will end up in balance again I guess. Some people will argue that we know enough now to be able to control capitalism, that we can, if not altogether eliminate the boom and bust cycle, dampen the excesses enough to make it palatable. This may be true but doesn't that mean that we are controlling the market and supply and demand that capitalists so love to believe are just magic potions compared to the evils of planning and democratization? Angel would argue that we have never really had capitalism and I have at times thought (when I was younger) that we should just get rid of the controls as well and see what happens. Although for me, it seemed fairly obvious that the working classes would band together and we finally would have the revolution. Oh, it's fun to play with people's lives when you're younger. Under a State Socialist economy, you're example would be correct as Alicat has already pointed out but in a democratic socialist economy, wouldn't people want quality health care? The first instinct would be to pay nothing for an infinite amount of health care but that's pretty unworkable (unless you really believe professionalism is that altruistic. I don't.) So what happens? As I see it, you have elections that determine the amount of money that goes into the health care system each year. This may go down or up dependent upon whoever wins the election but never enough to truly shake the working of the system as a whole. A radical departure from any one point is very unlikely (possible however) because most people seem to be inherently middle ground or main stream in any society. Why shake the boat if it's working? To argue differently is basically to argue that political democracy is a fraud. A socialist argues that people should be allowed to determine their own lives, not follow some ideological hoax called Marxist/Leninism or to have faith in the eternal perfection of the market (which is nothing more than people making decisions masked). State Socialism or Communism (I don't care what term we use) was flawed for a number of reasons but I think a prime one is that people weren't allowed to make decisions for themselves. They were told to give with nothing in return: "You pretend to pay us, we pretend to work" --Soviet proverb Given the obvious meaning that people were simply not getting paid in the Soviet system and therefore had no incentive to work, doesn't it also imply a hierarchy? Doesn't it imply that people were not working for themselves but working for a boss just as they do in capitalism? The difference then is not the system itself but the amount of money and the ability to use that money on a variety of things. Good old fashioned materialism if you as me. I saw a show recently that focused on some of the best companies today. These companies are not top down managements systems (the Soviet way) but, in essence, are bottom up systems -- they give more responsibility to each employee who in turn excells at his job because of that responsibility. There's still an owner of course but what if that owner were not one man but a democratic voice saying do this for this price? The internal mechanism of management would be worked out by the employees themselves -- they would vote on the management but would have as much personal responsibility to innovate and to work as they see fit. Innovation would be encouraged because that helps everyone. Status would be given to those with the best ideas. Furthermore, the system would have a more egalitarian feel because to help all would be to help me and so forth. If you want to have competition, you create two competing systems that deliver similar products and then you see what happens. The winner keeps producing (and innovating) and the loser starts to work on the next project. Ever heard of the military industrial complex? Doesn't seem all that different to me except that you wouldn't build weapons as much as build things that people want. If this system doesn't work then why in the world are we procuring weapons this way? Angel's concern with personal freedom is a valid one but to my way of thinking, there is no reason that one's personal freedom should be any more infringed upon than in a capitalist one; people should still have private lives (it is ironic that so few cultures in this world actually believe this but I suppose I'm still an American at heart). Again, this is done because people who do work for themselves (and not just for an owner or the state) do indeed seem to work harder and to find ways to make that work easier or more fulfilling. Socialism allows more people, in my opinion, to fulfill there potential than capitalism does because of the inherent IMBALANCE of the system. A person has one good idea, a person has a lot of capital already, a person works harder, or ,shoot, a person just gets lucky and they move to extremes of wealth and power. If a person does or has or gets any one of these aspects should they be recompensed? Of course. Is there anybody in this world who doesn't believe that? The question is how good is that idea, how much more work and so forth than other people? It is the imbalance of capitalism, the all or nothing mentality, that limits the majority in this world. Socialism would bring more of a balance and more of a rational balance to capitalism. It may not be as romantic as winning the lottery (capitalism) but it does make more sense. I have no problems with people being more intelligent, more talented, more determined, and more willing to make sacrifices to succeed. They should succeed and 'earn' more than I do. They should be more respected than I am. But how much more is the question. In capitalism, people will fall upon reified words like 'market', 'supply and demand', and 'owner' to justify this. In socialism, they will have a chance to think about it and ultimately realize that it is they who decide. They do this anyway. Hope people aren't getting tired of this topic yet. Brad |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Brad sorry I haven't been here a lot recently. What you say has of course some validity. BUT (LOL you knew there would be a "but" I assume?  ) when you say:"There's still an owner of course but what if that owner were not one man but a democratic voice saying do this for this price? The internal mechanism of management would be worked out by the employees themselves -- they would vote on the management but would have as much personal responsibility to innovate and to work as they see fit." Do you mean to say that private business would no longer exist? Let's say one man or woman has a great idea for a business, should he or she in your view submit the idea to the "people" and if they are in favour be allowed to work in the then created company? He or she should not be allowed to keep that company as their own and manage it according to how they wanted and envisioned it but rather turn the running over to the employees? HOW can that be fair? Is it not a great contribution to society to actually have such an idea and to therefore offer jobs to ppl? You make it sound like something bad to be the boss of a company. You would probably argue that if one person didn't have the idea, another would. Well if that were so why are there so many jobless ppl? We need more private businesses, not less. And does it even matter that someone else could have had the same idea? The fact is that THAT person had the idea and not someone else. It's like standing in front of a Picasso or Kandinsky and say: " I could have done that just as well". Yeah well, but you didn't. HE did. You state an awful lot: "not working for themselves but working for a boss just as they do in capitalism" Even if I am employed in a privately owned company and there is a boss, I do still work for myself and not the boss. I do not work like a slave for a master who relies on me to change his diapers. I work for a man who gives me a job and the opportunity to earn money to support myself. Yes it is his company; yes he may fire me if he so sees fit but I do not "work FOR him", I work for myself. He gives me money; he does not take it away. "Again, this is done because people who do work for themselves (and not just for an owner or the state) do indeed seem to work harder and to find ways to make that work easier or more fulfilling." I believe that this actually ties in with something you said in your previous paragraph: "they give more responsibility to each employee who in turn excells at his job because of that responsibility" It is not that ppl work harder for themselves than for a boss but rather that most bosses nowadays do not seem to see that their employees could work even better if they were let to develop their entrepreneurial ambitions. Most companies seem to work on what I call "microwave food syndrome". "There is your slab of food, follow instructions to cook and eat." They do not let you experiment or innovate. You have to keep work interesting to your employees, make "growth" possible and don't just expect them to work like dumb machines. But that is not an ill of Capitalism. I believe real Capitalism would see the potential in their employees and further their innovative ideas, cause that indeed would further not only the "idea-guy" but the whole company. In Socialism of course you'd have to vote first and probably miss out on the fresh hot brainstorm of an employee… but then if every company had to go through that I guess progress would just slow down. But then so what if ppl have to wait for years for their new car like in the former East Germany… "Your argument seems to be saying that capitalism is better because it is faster. Yet, what was the primary recovery stimulus for the Great Depression? It wasn't FDR's New Deal, it was the war. Now, things were restored and the economy became stronger but I'm not so sure I want to go through that if there is ever a crisis on that scale. Still, things will end up in balance again I guess." Hmm… do you think that redistribution of wealth (i.e. REAL Socialism) would have got the US out of the depression? Fact is you need to have money to make money. Taking it away (in form of higher taxes) from those who would invest it into a new company would result in equality of poverty yes. But no chance to get out of it. " A person has one good idea, a person has a lot of capital already, a person works harder, or ,shoot, a person just gets lucky and they move to extremes of wealth and power. If a person does or has or gets any one of these aspects should they be recompensed? Of course. Is there anybody in this world who doesn't believe that? The question is how good is that idea, how much more work and so forth than other people?" I think that would best be answered by how many ppl rush out to buy your product. BUT I do not agree that with money should come power. Money and power mentioned in one sentence, suggests a system of favours and of connections. In real Capitalism money could not buy governmental support, as the government would largely be kept out of the economy. REAL capitalism would work on production and not on string-pulling. "I have no problems with people being more intelligent, more talented, more determined, and more willing to make sacrifices to succeed. They should succeed and 'earn' more than I do. They should be more respected than I am. But how much more is the question. In capitalism, people will fall upon reified words like 'market', 'supply and demand', and 'owner' to justify this. In socialism, they will have a chance to think about it and ultimately realize that it is they who decide. They do this anyway." So all the ppl who didn't come up with the idea are to decide how much the inventor is allowed to earn according to how much, if indeed at all, the product is needed? Matel wrap up your Barbies and Action Men! Sorry gals and boys, you don't "need" that doll. No more Oreos cause we don't need those either. They make ya fat, attack your teeth and besides we have Standard Wheat Cracker #1 and #2 to make tea time nice… How awful… "It may not be as romantic as winning the lottery (capitalism) but…" Winning the lottery and Capitalism are not the same! Capitalism and Money are NOT synonyms. According to Webster's Dictionary Capitalism means: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" Money comes into this only as a secondary benefit or as a tool if you will. Oh well… Angel < !signature--> "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand [This message has been edited by Angel Rand (edited 12-07-1999).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Angel, I have the same problems you do; I'm just glad you're still interested in talking (and if there wasn't a 'but' this wouldn't be very interesting would it?  )Do you mean to say that private business would no longer exist? Let's say one man or woman has a great idea for a business, should he or she in your view submit the idea to the "people" and if they are in favour be allowed to work in the then created company? He or she should not be allowed to keep that company as their own and manage it according to how they wanted and envisioned it but rather turn the running over to the employees? HOW can that be fair? Is it not a great contribution to society to actually have such an idea and to therefore offer jobs to ppl? You make it sound like something bad to be the boss of a company. --That happens now because the basis for the economy is capital, not good ideas. People have to persuade banks for example to loan them money and good ideas are not materialized or taken away from 'good bosses' for a number of reasons. A good idea is determined by the 'market' which is just another way of saying that people choose and decide what good ideas are anyway. Why not formalize it a bit more and take away the clouds of obfusication that we have now? You would probably argue that if one person didn't have the idea, another would. --No, I don't mean that at all. I mean that we should be more honest in our dealings with each other. Well if that were so why are there so many jobless ppl? We need more private businesses, not less. --We need more production, more ideas, and more discussion. Not less. And does it even matter that someone else could have had the same idea? The fact is that THAT person had the idea and not someone else. It's like standing in front of a Picasso or Kandinsky and say: " I could have done that just as well". Yeah well, but you didn't. HE did. --I agree. "not working for themselves but working for a boss just as they do in capitalism" Even if I am employed in a privately owned company and there is a boss, I do still work for myself and not the boss. I do not work like a slave for a master who relies on me to change his diapers. I work for a man who gives me a job and the opportunity to earn money to support myself. Yes it is his company; yes he may fire me if he so sees fit but I do not "work FOR him", I work for myself. He gives me money; he does not take it away. --the question is if this situation is an equal or an unequal one. If I make a mistake, I get fired. If the owners or management make a mistake, he or she loses their job AND I lose my job. "Again, this is done because people who do work for themselves (and not just for an owner or the state) do indeed seem to work harder and to find ways to make that work easier or more fulfilling." I believe that this actually ties in with something you said in your previous paragraph: "they give more responsibility to each employee who in turn excells at his job because of that responsibility" It is not that ppl work harder for themselves than for a boss but rather that most bosses nowadays do not seem to see that their employees could work even better if they were let to develop their entrepreneurial ambitions. Most companies seem to work on what I call "microwave food syndrome". "There is your slab of food, follow instructions to cook and eat." They do not let you experiment or innovate. You have to keep work interesting to your employees, make "growth" possible and don't just expect them to work like dumb machines. But that is not an ill of Capitalism. --but what if an employee has a good idea? Who reaps the profits over the course of time? The employee should, of course, but the employer will as well by virtue of that wonderful little thing called capital. I believe real Capitalism would see the potential in their employees and further their innovative ideas, cause that indeed would further not only the "idea-guy" but the whole company. In Socialism of course you'd have to vote first and probably miss out on the fresh hot brainstorm of an employee… but then if every company had to go through that I guess progress would just slow down. But then so what if ppl have to wait for years for their new car like in the former East Germany… --because in former East Germany, the people, the employees, and individuals were ignored in favor of an ideology. I say give more responsibility to everybody and see what happens. "Your argument seems to be saying that capitalism is better because it is faster. Yet, what was the primary recovery stimulus for the Great Depression? It wasn't FDR's New Deal, it was the war. Now, things were restored and the economy became stronger but I'm not so sure I want to go through that if there is ever a crisis on that scale. Still, things will end up in balance again I guess." Hmm… do you think that redistribution of wealth (i.e. REAL Socialism) would have got the US out of the depression? Fact is you need to have money to make money. Taking it away (in form of higher taxes) from those who would invest it into a new company would result in equality of poverty yes. But no chance to get out of it. --That's what I see too. " A person has one good idea, a person has a lot of capital already, a person works harder, or ,shoot, a person just gets lucky and they move to extremes of wealth and power. If a person does or has or gets any one of these aspects should they be recompensed? Of course. Is there anybody in this world who doesn't believe that? The question is how good is that idea, how much more work and so forth than other people?" I think that would best be answered by how many ppl rush out to buy your product. BUT I do not agree that with money should come power. Money and power mentioned in one sentence, suggests a system of favours and of connections. --Well, that's what I see. Money buys influence; money buys censorship; and money buys power. In real Capitalism money could not buy governmental support, as the government would largely be kept out of the economy. REAL capitalism would work on production and not on string-pulling. --When you have time, why not start a thread on theoretical capitalism? Be interesting to hear your thoughts on that. "I have no problems with people being more intelligent, more talented, more determined, and more willing to make sacrifices to succeed. They should succeed and 'earn' more than I do. They should be more respected than I am. But how much more is the question. In capitalism, people will fall upon reified words like 'market', 'supply and demand', and 'owner' to justify this. In socialism, they will have a chance to think about it and ultimately realize that it is they who decide. They do this anyway." So all the ppl who didn't come up with the idea are to decide how much the inventor is allowed to earn according to how much, if indeed at all, the product is needed? --It's called the market. Matel wrap up your Barbies and Action Men! Sorry gals and boys, you don't "need" that doll. No more Oreos cause we don't need those either. They make ya fat, attack your teeth and besides we have Standard Wheat Cracker #1 and #2 to make tea time nice… How awful… --Why wouldn't people want these things? Essentially, you are arguing for advertising. I have no problems with advertising in theory because persuasion is still the key to socialism as it is to capitalism. "It may not be as romantic as winning the lottery (capitalism) but…" Winning the lottery and Capitalism are not the same! Capitalism and Money are NOT synonyms. According to Webster's Dictionary Capitalism means: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" Money comes into this only as a secondary benefit or as a tool if you will. --No, they are not the same thing. My use of the lottery is based on someone who has one idea, has the capital and then can gain far more than other people. I question the equilibrium factor of capitalism; a factor that most people, I think, would consider to be unreasonable. By lottery, I simply meant that you buy one ticket and get a chance to multiply your money astronomically. Is this fair? No, it's lucky. The question I ask and the issue that I think all this revolves around is something you've brought up several times: value. How valuable is one person's work versus another? Again, I have no problems with one person's work being worth more than another (capitalists work hard; they're not all 'fatcats') but how much? It's a question that no one asks but everyone decides everyday. Let's bring this question out into the open. Brad |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Hi again Brad, was wondering where you had got to "That happens now because the basis for the economy is capital, not good ideas. People have to persuade banks for example to loan them money and good ideas are not materialized or taken away from 'good bosses' for a number of reasons. --Banks are there to make money for the ppl who entrust their money to them and of course to earn "some" themselves along the way. Of course you have to persuade a bank to give you money. You have to convince them that investing money into your company is in their own best interest and through that in the best interest of their investors. " Let's say one man or woman has a great idea for a business, should he or she in your view submit the idea to the "people" and if they are in favour be allowed to work in the then created company?" "A good idea is determined by the 'market' which is just another way of saying that people choose and decide what good ideas are anyway. Why not formalize bit a bit more and take away the clouds of obfusication that we have now?" " So all the ppl who didn't come up with the idea are to decide how much the inventor is allowed to earn according to how much, if indeed at all, the product is needed? " --It's called the market." --I didn't mean the people as in the free market but rather the ppl who would work in that company. Or maybe even something like having to hand your idea into some kind of evaluation court with 12 or so jurors or judges. From my own experience there is an example how such a committee can go dead wrong with such an evaluation. A cosmetics company (I had a summer job with them then) came up with a new kind of soapy liquid and wanted to test it out on their employees to see what they thought of it. Most ppl said that it was too much like something they already had and that ppl would not buy that new one, as the old one was so very good. Well the boss said I think you are wrong and went ahead putting it on the market. It turned out to become their best seller without reducing the sale of the other soapy stuff. So you see, anything is worth a try and I think we would cut deeply into ppl's right if we were to say that a committee has to judge the value of your product and therefore maybe even letting it die before it is even on the market. Should you have meant that ALL ppl on the free market should be able to decide on things like that (BEFORE the product goes on the shelves) I really wonder how that would be accomplished without severe costs to the poor chap who had the idea. " They make ya fat, attack your teeth and besides we have Standard Wheat Cracker #1 and #2 to make tea time nice… How awful…" " --Why wouldn't people want these things? Essentially, you are arguing for advertising. I have no problems with advertising in theory because persuasion is still the key to socialism as it is to capitalism." --So how did you mean ppl should vote if they want a thing or not? What would their judgement be based on? Ppl's needs? That is why I mentioned Standard Wheat Cracker #1 and #2. We don't NEED another cookie brand but MAN do I like variety! " No, I don't mean that at all. I mean that we should be more honest in our dealings with each other." --Very objective of you . "-We need more production, more ideas, and more discussion. Not less." --Yes to production and ideas but discussion among whom? Between the idea guy and his workers? "Yes boss you pay us to work those machines, no we are not unhappy with the pay we receive but we feel that your idea wont sell so we don't want to produce your "post-its" (or what ever)" Errr… " The question is if this situation is an equal or an unequal one. If I make a mistake, I get fired. If the owners or management make a mistake, he or she loses their job AND I lose my job." --Yep true. They shoulder a lot more responsibility than their workers do, as they are responsible for so many jobs and so many ppl. Maybe that too is why they earn more? How should this happen in your view? Should ppl be "unfireable"? Or that companies should be supported by society no matter how often they make mistakes, how foolish their manager is at decision making or how badly their employees work? Surely not? " But what if an employee has a good idea? Who reaps the profits over the course of time? The employee should, of course, but the employer will as well by virtue of that wonderful little thing called capital." --I see several answers to this. First of all you probably got that job precisely to come up with ideas and therefore your job is to be inventive and that is for what you get your salary. No one could pretend under these circumstances that they are treated unfairly when the company makes money out of their idea. Secondly: when you get a job and you sign your contract make sure that it says in this that you should get royalties or market shares or what ever just in case you did come up with something truly or even half way "cool". OR thirdly you leave your employment and start your own company so you yourself can sell that product you so cleverly came up with. " Well, that's what I see. Money buys influence; money buys censorship; and money buys power." --Precisely. And that is why I am so in favour of laissez-faire capitalism. "No, they are not the same thing. My use of the lottery is based on someone who has one idea, has the capital and then can gain far more than other people. I question the equilibrium factor of capitalism; a factor that most people, I think, would consider to be unreasonable. By lottery, I simply meant that you buy one ticket and get a chance to multiply your money astronomically. Is this fair? No, it's lucky. The question I ask and the issue that I think all this revolves around is something you've brought up several times: value. How valuable is one person's work versus another? Again, I have no problems with one person's work being worth more than another (capitalists work hard; they're not all 'fatcats') but how much? It's a question that no one asks but everyone decides everyday. Let's bring this question out into the open." --Not all successful ideas ppl come up with are based on luck. Some of them come into being after a lot of market research and loads of hard development work. But what I would like to know is how you think it should be determined what a person is allowed to earn and what is too much? And who determines that? The ppl on that before mentioned committee or all the ppl in the same line of work who didn't come up with the idea or the ppl who rush out and buy his product? What about stocks and shares? Should those also have a law on them on how much you as a person are allowed to make from them? And how would that be controlled? By letting ppl only buy a certain amount of shares? And then what will the company do who would use your investment to produce? Or should you be allowed to first earn the money and then be told how much you are allowed to keep? Like in a tip for your efforts? And the rest would go to ppl who have less and/or never even bothered to invest? Well this line of thought makes it kinda obvious why capitalism breeds hard work… and why socialism breeds parasites… Greetings from a capitalistic lil cherub Angel PS: for all who have not read that masterpiece of Ayn Rand's called Atlas Shrugged (or would like to refresh their memory) and are interested in reading about the true virtue of money, here is a link to a wonderful excerpt. http://www.danconia.com/money.htm < !signature--> "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand [This message has been edited by Angel Rand (edited 12-12-1999).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Angel, Good points all around but remember that socialism from my point of view would still keep basic individual and minority rights. "A cosmetics company (I had a summer job with them then) came up with a new kind of soapy liquid and wanted to test it out on their employees to see what they thought of it. Most ppl said that it was too much like something they already had and that ppl would not buy that new one, as the old one was so very good. Well the boss said I think you are wrong and went ahead putting it on the market. It turned out to become their best seller without reducing the sale of the other soapy stuff. So you see, anything is worth a try and I think we would cut deeply into ppl's right if we were to say that a committee has to judge the value of your product and therefore maybe even letting it die before it is even on the market." --How many products die that you've never even heard of that didn't go to market? Now, imagine there's no boss as you speak of but an elected manager. He proposes an idea that is voted down. What does he do? It seems to me that he should be able to do the same thing in capitalism on a trial run. If it gains profits for the company, people will agree with him. If it doesn't and it was a serious mistake, he is voted out of office. It it's an employee with the idea, he is rewarded in some way as the representative management sees fit. "Should you have meant that ALL ppl on the free market should be able to decide on things like that (BEFORE the product goes on the shelves) I really wonder how that would be accomplished without severe costs to the poor chap who had the idea." --I used to think that was the way to go but it just seems unworkable. At each level of collective groups, a certain portion would (probably) be put aside for those new ideas. Angel, you see capitalism as the great diversifier and I see it as the great homogenizer (state socialism is even worse than capitalism in this respect). People do indeed seem to like the new and the novel so part of each level would go to experimentation on a constant level (R & D). Why not? "So how did you mean ppl should vote if they want a thing or not? What would their judgement be based on? Ppl's needs? That is why I mentioned Standard Wheat Cracker #1 and #2. We don't NEED another cookie brand but MAN do I like variety!" --And so do a lot of other people. I want more variety. After four years in Japan, I was schocked by the size of an American supermarket and then immediately disappointed at the overall lack of variety there. "Yes to production and ideas but discussion among whom? Between the idea guy and his workers? "Yes boss you pay us to work those machines, no we are not unhappy with the pay we receive but we feel that your idea wont sell so we don't want to produce your "post-its" (or what ever)" Err"r… --Remember, the company is collectively owned like a democratic country. The 'boss' is the manager who must simutlaneously keep the workers satisfied and placate other people's needs and demands. The discussion is everyone's responsibility. "They shoulder a lot more responsibility than their workers do, as they are responsible for so many jobs and so many ppl. Maybe that too is why they earn more? How should this happen in your view? Should ppl be "unfireable"? Or that companies should be supported by society no matter how often they make mistakes, how foolish their manager is at decision making or how badly their employees work? Surely not?" --Surely not. The reasons Unions often make this case is the fear of losing a job, of one's livelihood. However, it seems to me that an unproductive company can be redirected into a different form of production. This would not be done overnight as in capitalism but gradually over time. In such a situation, you won't get the massive boom and bust cylcles in capitalism -- and they still happen just not to the degree of say fifty or sixty years ago. Everyone has to work. Marx's base for the whole system was work not leisure; his point or at least as I see it is that a tremendous amount of things are not done because there is no immediate profit in them. People have to eat and if they want to eat they must do something that is productive for society. There is no welfare system as such in socialism. Welfare mothers? This is such an insane concept to me. Isn't being a mother or being a housewife a form of work? The hardest job in the world as Oprah would say. Should they be compensated for that responsibility? Of course, they should. "First of all you probably got that job precisely to come up with ideas and therefore your job is to be inventive and that is for what you get your salary. No one could pretend under these circumstances that they are treated unfairly when the company makes money out of their idea. Secondly: when you get a job and you sign your contract make sure that it says in this that you should get royalties or market shares or what ever just in case you did come up with something truly or even half way "cool". OR thirdly you leave your employment and start your own company so you yourself can sell that product you so cleverly came up with." --I see the same possibilities when it comes to socialism. The third, however, is based on one's own work (whether through your own and then through persuasion -- a small business -- or through persuasion and then work). In either case, the moment the 'business' begins to succeed you must ask someone to join your success. Should they get equal to your share? It depends on how much they work and improve the store, business, whatever. This is demonstrable through 'profits'and the amount of person each person does-- the community has decided that we would like more of your product; if the project works better then everybody succeeds. So let's say you have two new employees (they're not employees) who don't like you and scheme to take over the company but what is there to take over? How do they take it over? Why would they take it over? They can't buy you out. They are not going to make any more money by voting you out. It's your idea and you're making it work. It's in their best interest to keep you working because you know the idea better than they do. On the other hand, if you have an idea and then relax, take some time off, you don't reap the rewards either just because it was your idea. The person, whoever that may be, who is doing the work is reaping the reward. You reward productive work. My model is really nothing more than a slightly modified stockholder's meeting. But, there's no big pay off at the end; there's no 'grand slam' for someone who works slightly more. Is there some reward? Yes, incentives should be there but I am not convinced that the extremes that you see in capitalism are in any way rational. Do you remember in the late '80's when company managers were getting raises while the company itself was actually losing money? (I know, I know -- that's not real capitalism) "Not all successful ideas ppl come up with are based on luck. Some of them come into being after a lot of market research and loads of hard development work." --Yes, and that work, by definition, is made by more than one person. "But what I would like to know is how you think it should be determined what a person is allowed to earn and what is too much? And who determines that? The ppl on that before mentioned committe or all the ppl in the same line of work who didn't come up with the idea or the ppl who rush out and buy his product?" --Who determines that now? Economics is about people to people transactions. Somebody is determining that now. No, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy or a cartel but it is determined by a lot of different people. Again, I, contrary to Marx, think it is possible and beneficial to have a certain amount of competition in the field. Let's find out what they should earn, let's study what is in the best interest of the society and the individual. Look at Ron's example of a doctor again: Would people be willing to pay more for a doctor or less for a doctor so that you motivate the best qualified people into that profession? I think people would pay more on the average to have quality people in that specialization. In most specializations. Such compensation would change over time depending on the immediate and long term needs of the society. "What about stocks and shares?" --Why would this system be in place in socialism? "And then what will the company do who would use your investment to produce? Or should you be allowed to first earn the money and then be told how much you are allowed to keep? Like in a tip for your efforts? And the rest would go to ppl who have less and/or never even bothered to invest?" --Socialism isn't based on investment like this. Your reward is based on your work and your contribution to that society as determined by representative democracy and a controlled market (Okay, Marx said no market; that's my idea). "Well this line of thought makes it kinda obvious why capitalism breeds hard work… and why socialism breeds parasites" --There will always be people who try to beat the system but capitalism breeds just as many parasites; I call them owners who don't work. No, I don't hate owners but what I don't understand is how owners and families that own can do nothing productive for society and still claim that status and wealth that they do. As Trevor has pointed out, this is akin to the fuedal system. Every once in a while, I feel I have to point out that I'm not red through and through here (although I think I'm tentatively right on most of this). The question is not how an establised socialist system can work; I think it can. The question is how do we get there? Do we want to go there? And I disagree with Marx on this one. No revolution but only through gradual change is it possible. This gradual change is not the increased power of the state but the continual gaining of responsibility in the workplace by each individual. Only through responsibility will people begin to see that they have a stake, that they should have a say in their own lives. Why doesn't anybody vote? Because it doesn't matter when they spend the majority of their lives in a place where that vote will change very little. This is still another fallacy of course because it has indeed changed quite a bit for workers in say the last one hundred and fifty years. There is also some confusion with regards to owning private property and owning private property that you use productively in an economy. That's a really tricky one and I don't know if I can give a satisfactory answer right now. I'm tired. Waiting eagerly to be told I'm completely wrong, Brad |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Hi Brad, Yep you are totally wrong "Socialism from my point of view would still keep basic individual and minority rights." --How would that be possible? You state that private property would still be there (as in that ppl may own houses, cars etc I assume?) yet you do not seem to agree with me that property means that you may use your property according to your wishes. If you REALLY own a strip of land then surely you are allowed to use it as you seem fit (provided of course that with it you do not violate the constitutional rights of another). So why do you make a difference with intellectual property? Why should your invention, your brainchild, automatically belong to the people when it starts to pay off? Doesn't that imply that you may use your strip of land only in accordance to what the state (i.e. other ppl) sees fit? Only as long as no one else can profit from your property? So in other words you have the responsibility for that strip of land but not the privileges. And the state has the privileges but not the responsibilities. You may "own" the land but you may not use it. Nice "property" rights you advocate there. So property is not property at all but a loan from a government that can be infringed upon according to their wishes. Or are you saying that all rights EXCEPT property rights would still be in place? That would imply that nothing you have is yours. The clothes you wear that you bought from your salary too are just rented. In fact the very money in your pocket is just by the good will of the ppl. They can claim it as soon as they seem fit. They can also claim your brain and your very soul as theirs. As soon as you infringe on property rights you infringe on freedom. So there goes the second of your rights. You are nothing in the face of the community. You are but an arm to a body or a cell in. Let me see if I got this right: You are not allowed to start your own business as long as the state doesn't agree with you (if starting a new business doesn't have to be ordained from the government anyway). Should they agree with you, you have no right to run that company as you seem fit but rather have to by law take ppl in who would share in your material and intellectual "property". Furthermore when you make a mistake your employees can vote you out of the "drivers chair", stripping you of your right to your invention. And all this, why? Cause your work has to profit the ppl first and claiming anything was done for your own benefit and not others is like robbery. Robbery from all the ppl who didn't have the idea. So in other words again, if someone makes an invention and dares to want that invention to profit primarily himself, he makes that invention at the expense of everybody who didn't have that same idea? Or are you stating yet again that the factory worker should profit as much from your invention as you do cause he physically produces your work? And the fact that your invention gave him his factory job and his salary in the first place makes it legal for him to be rewarded by your idea as much as you yourself? In yet other words and using an analogy I used before: the hand deserves the same credit for turning the pages of a book as the brain that absorbs and re-uses the gained knowledge? And it does not make a difference that the hands already profit from the brain's intellect by the very thing the brain learns? The hands have that same claim because the brain could not absorb the knowledge without the hands turning the page and therefore the hands are equal to the brain in the claim for credit? Do I have that right? You don't think that the hands provide a service for which yes they should be rewarded well but that it is the brain that deserves the most credit? "Angel, you see capitalism as the great diversifier and I see it as the great homogenizer (state socialism is even worse than capitalism in this respect)" --No, I just see that ppl are diverse to start with. Some are inventors and producers and others are workers. Both have their value and both deserve respect. Yes indeed workers are needed and work couldn't be done without them. And they should take pride in that and do their jobs as well as they can. Not only for their own monetary benefit but also out of respect to themselves. But to state that they have the right to more than a job and a decent salary (to be got through their best abilities and not just cause they need the paying job), that they have in fact claim on the intellectual property of their employer is so much in breach with human rights that it makes my hair stand up on end. "Remember, the company is collectively owned like a democratic country. The 'boss' is the manager who must simultaneously keep the workers satisfied and placate other people's needs and demands. The discussion is everyone's responsibility." --So indeed there would be no private businesses as no one is allowed to start their own business but must surrender their ideas, their brain to society. " In either case, the moment the 'business' begins to succeed you must ask someone to join your success." --What, and if doesn't you're on your own, huh? Or rather yet again rely on those who DO make their businesses work to support you. Where is the incentive here to MAKE it work? If you fail or not, there is no real difference except that when you succeed your earnings and profits are taken away and if you fail you GET money. You really think that ppl should be forced by law rather than by choice as it is now to take on a business partner? And on another thought, what if you are an ingenious painter? Let's say you are new Picasso? Ppl under socialism of course do not own great works of art, as it is the property of everybody, right? Yet again, what your talent comes up with is not your property but everybody else's. So if you are Picasso you should be glad if a museum gives you some money for your materials so that everybody is able to continuously enjoy the ingenuity of your work of course... "Should they get equal to your share? It depends on how much they work and improve the store, business, whatever." --Well in capitalism of course a hired manager who makes a business work better is very highly paid and if he is not, he is free to find another employment. So I don't quite see your point there except yet again a lack of freedom. Cause surely in socialism neither employer nor employee could freely choose who they hire/work for. Otherwise an employer (who doesn't even exist as such in socialism) would also be free NOT to hire anyone if he so wishes. "People have to eat and if they want to eat they must do something that is productive for society. There is no welfare system as such in socialism." --So if you want to survive you must first of all give in order to receive? Like if you are a farmer you are not allowed to first take food off your land for yourself but rather have to sell ALL your products and then see what society gives back to you as a little loan for your effort in feeding them? You really are for a credit system of "To each according to their needs and not according to their abilities" eh Brad? So what happens if someone is too lazy to work but not too lazy to "multiply" and he or she has many children? Surely their need would be greater than that of a single professor even if he invents such things as cold fusion? His whole profit in that really should be the satisfaction of having given this heat to the mother with 15 children? Talk about socialism NOT being altruistic… "Welfare mothers? This is such an insane concept to me. Isn't being a mother or being a housewife a form of work? The hardest job in the world as Oprah would say. Should they be compensated for that responsibility? Of course, they should." --Oh yes? Who by? "Listen you childless hard working neighbour of mine. I brought into this world a wonderful present to society in form of 15 children. I therefore command you to give me your money for this wonderful gift as a reward for my having these kids and bringing them up in the first place." " So let's say you have two new employees (they're not employees) who don't like you and scheme to take over the company but what is there to take over? How do they take it over? Why would they take it over? They can't buy you out. They are not going to make any more money by voting you out. It's your idea and you're making it work. It's in their best interest to keep you working because you know the idea better than they do. On the other hand, if you have an idea and then relax, take some time off, you don't reap the rewards either just because it was your idea." --Yeah cause as we already established there are neither property rights as to the grounds where your business stands, nor intellectual property rights. But as to "knowing your idea better than others" I am afraid it doesn't take an Einstein to understand how to run a paper shop. So in reality for a business like that you could be stripped of your right to it because it is so mundane and obvious. Only physicists and mathematicians maybe can claim to understand their idea better than others do. And these poor chaps have to be on the run all the time as to come up with new ideas as to not lose their right to at least work in their own project… what a rosy world you dream of Brad… " "Not all successful ideas ppl come up with are based on luck. Some of them come into being after a lot of market research and loads of hard development work." -Yes, and that work, by definition, is made by more than one person." --Yes but only one person had the initial idea. Again, why should an idea become public property just cause it gives other ppl work? " Let's find out what they should earn, let's study what is in the best interest of the society and the individual." --Yeah cause we are all children who need to be given pocket money by our parent "mother state". Once again the right to freedom is out of the window. We are subjects to the government. And that we can supposedly elect our rulers doesn't make us any less subjects. " There will always be people who try to beat the system but capitalism breeds just as many parasites; I call them owners who don't work. No, I don't hate owners but what I don't understand is how owners and families that own can do nothing productive for society and still claim that status and wealth that they do. As Trevor has pointed out, this is akin to the fuedal system." --In capitalism you either work or drown. You are rewarded for ability and effort. In socialism you are rewarded according to your need. Why work if you can just have more kids instead? In capitalism you work harder if you want more kids cause it is your responsibility and not your neighbour's to provide for your kids. And yes I agree owners who do not work are as much looters and moochers as the persons living of welfare cause they can. But no way should therefore all owners be stripped of property rights flat out. Besides I would like to point out that there are more ppl who would suffer under abuse of welfare than there are who suffer under lazy owners. At least these owners own businesses that employ and pay ppl. And should you not like to work for them or they pay you too little you are (in a capitalistic society that is) free to find another job or to strike along with your union. " Only through responsibility will people begin to see that they have a stake, that they should have a say in their own lives." --How do they have a say in their own lives if they are neither free nor have the right to own anything? "Why doesn't anybody vote? Because it doesn't matter when they spend the majority of their lives in a place where that vote will change very little." --Precisely. They are controlled by the state and one individual has no say. You only have a say if you are a collective and unfortunately ppl are starting to resign themselves to that. Socialism is not a synonym with freedom. Quite in the contrary. It not only makes you a slave to society but also asks you to give up your individuality, your soul and your brain willingly and cheerfully for the "good of society". And if you don't then they take you by force. How like the Borg… If I seemed harsh in this I apologise but the one thing that gets this peaceful Angel going is a threat to her individuality. Just ask my primary school teacher on how "willing" I was "to fit in" Angel "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Hello again, everybody. I just thought I'd pop in and say hi to Angel (hi Angel!) and insert my two drachmas. Please forgive me if I am exhuming someone else's point but eyes begin to skip when trying to read and scroll down a computer monitor at the same time, you understand. BRAD and TREVOR: Both of you seem to be of the mind that Socialism/Communism does not necessarily mean that personal freedoms are to be lost. I couldn't disagree more. Trevor, you have made the corporate/government comparison many time in, I think, an attempt to break down the notion of "personal" freedom being a viable attribute of Capitalism. But there is a major difference between the corporate and government approach to money (economics) that, again I think, tips your fact basket. Let me illustrate: Government agencies are not driven by the need to make money ... they are driven by the need to justify spending at least as much money as they did the year before so that they do not lose funding. I think "the public good" or "utilitarian" label is more often than not a mere public image statement. What is really important to a government agency is remaining a government agency. So what, you ask, does this mean practically? It means budgets never shrink ... they grow ... and as they grow the government agencies acquire more power, becoming more intrusive in the private lives of the citizenry, and, as a result, personal freedom is lost. Corporations, on the other hand, are profit driven. If a corporation makes money then some of it finds its way into the hands of its best employees (a good business knows that the best way to keep its best employees is with financial incentive). Corporate spending is most often discretionary, while government spending is arbitrary. Corporations spend money in hopes of making money. If a corporation chooses to exploit its workers by not paying a fair wage, a competitor hires its most skilled workers and the original corporation loses money (a nice checks and balance system, in my opinion. Not perfect but nice nonetheless). Governments spend money, among other reasons, to be able to continue to spend atleast the same or greater amount of money in the future. Government redistribution of wealth is arbitrary spending. No one governs the spending process except the "spender" (the government). How is this not a loss of personal freedom? There are no unions or competitors to help police arbitrary, government spending. And this encroachment into personal freedom never stops with financial freedom (again, a lesson learned from history). ANGEL: I apologize for not coming to your aid sooner (not that you needed it ). I consider myself a pragmatist when it comes to economics. That does not necessarily make me a Capitalist (although I may be a closet Capitalist) it most certainly means I am not a Socialist. Okay everyone ... take aim and shoot! Jim "If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
LOL Hi Jim, thanks for the support. It is very much appreciated. Checked your ICQ lately? Angel "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I just wanted to say that I'm not done yet. I haven't had much time to respond to the capitalists but I will be back. By the way, I'm glad that people are still willing to discuss this. Usually, you have people roll their eyes at you or just plain think you're insane (or an idiot). "I'm not sure what I am but I'm not a Marxist" Karl Marx |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello everyone, Brad I'm sorry I left you alone on this one again....I had no idea these capitalists were so ruthless....forgive me Comrade Mattox....the revolution shall begin again I can't believe this thread is still going.....not that I'm complaining. ANGEL: "Doesn't that imply that you may use your strip of land only in accordance to what the state (i.e. other ppl) sees fit?" A very valid point, but how is your property protected in a capitalist state? A gov't can legally oust you from your land if they see fit right now. Currently in Canada, the gov't can evict you from your land if they think that it is in the best interest of the country, ie. Large mineral deposits. Also my land is not protected from many of the harmful pollutants that large companies often create. I know you'll probably say that in an ideal capitalist state companies would act socially and environmentally responsible but that's like me saying in an ideal Communist state so would the people. "So property is not property at all but a loan from a government that can be infringed upon according to their wishes." If land is a right then why in a capitalist society must I buy it? Why should I have to pay not only to "own" my land that should be a birthright but pay taxes upon it as well? Why should a handfull of people be allowed to dictate the price of this right and the availability of this right? "Or are you saying that all rights EXCEPT property rights would still be in place? That would imply that nothing you have is yours. The clothes you wear that you bought from your salary too are just rented. In fact the very money in your pocket is just by the good will of the ppl. They can claim it as soon as they seem fit. They can also claim your brain and your very soul as theirs." Aren't ya just being a little melodramatic Angel J/K, I don't see how you don't think this very same problem occurs in every system of gov't or social philosophy and not only Communism. If something you own is deemed essential for the survival of a society then it will be taken from you. Should a whole country suffer because of one? With capitalism one person could control all the capital within the country if they did so legally (and this is the goal of capitalism, market domination). This could be called a dictatorship. Should one be allowed to dominate the lives of so many? Should 999,999 people be outvoted by one? Who should dictate the direction and goals of society, the few or the many? Should the few tell the many what they're futures will be or should the many tell the few what the agenda is? Who should run the show? Should someone making trendy shoes be allowed to manipulate society as they see fit? How will your voice be heard in a capitalist society? Will you be allowed to help slate which land to use and how it will be developed or will corporations decide? In a communist society cures would emerge where there were only treatments because no longer would a pharmaceutical company be worrying about making money and being accountable to shareholders but would think of their job and the people....well in an ideal communist society. Okay I'm starting to veer all over the place...sorry."Should they agree with you, you have no right to run that company as you seem fit but rather have to by law take ppl in who would share in your material and intellectual "property"." Yes but you would share in theirs as well. You would be paid in full by the efforts of others. You invent a car and someone in return invents a plane. You could still live in a large house, but then again so could everyone else. You could eat fancy food and go to the movies, but so could everyone else and why because they are putting as much effort into your life as your are putting into theirs. Do you think in a communist society people wouldn't want to create and work on luxuries? Also in a communist society, if the work force was large enough you might only have a twenty hour work week in order to do your bit in producing what society wants. The workers may have a say in your inventions but you also have a say in theirs. You can as easily get rid of a slack worker as they can get rid of a bad manager. Also the opportunity for personal growth is emmense in communism...Brad has already brought up the point that in communism one would be able to fish in the morning, fly a plane in the afternoon and paint at night. You could try different careers without worrying about starving. A recent poll in the states indicated that 92 percent of all Americans surveyed stated that they disliked their jobs...so why do they stay instead of finding a new career....because many of them can not afford to take a chance. In communism you'd not only be allowed to change jobs and have choices but occupational diversity would also be a necessity. "the hand deserves the same credit for turning the pages of a book as the brain that absorbs and re-uses the gained knowledge?" Ask a parapeligic the same question and see how they answer it. Probably trade their best thought just to be able to have feeling in one finger again. "Yes indeed workers are needed and work couldn't be done without them. And they should take pride in that and do their jobs as well as they can. Not only for their own monetary benefit but also out of respect to themselves. But to state that they have the right to more than a job and a decent salary (to be got through their best abilities and not just cause they need the paying job), that they have in fact claim on the intellectual property of their employer is so much in breach with human rights that it makes my hair stand up on end." If workers are a necessity for an employer then how can a worker be below their employer who is also a necessity for them? Classifying needs in order of importance is an exercise in futility because a need is something that is essential for survival. Yes one could say that without oxygen you would perish more quickly than if you lacked food, but the end result is the same. So by saying that the inventor (lets call it air) is more important then the worker (call it food) is ridiculous because without either there is no chance of survival, both are a necessity. Are not all needs truly equal in value? If there was one breath left, one glass of water left or one piece of food left which one would you choose? Would it matter? Perhaps capitalism would work if everyone started from ground zero. Maybe if countries gave back all the land and resources they stole from people. Is it fair that I have to compete for survival against people whose riches were founded on lawful thievery? Should I have to compete against John Doe whose great-great-great-great grandfather helped take the land away from the rightful owners and profited from this and was able to pass this profit down through the generations and also onto those they deemed worthy? Should I have to compete against someone whose only claim to fortune was patronage by a gov't? Should someone of African decent, born in a poor urban society have to compete for survival against someone whose family's wealth is founded on slavery and exploitation and is born into such wealth? Maybe capitalism isn't such a bad idea if we all started out the same....with nothing, based on nothing, because a lot of the same power and money that floats around now can be traced to some sort of corruption. Take the Kennedys for instance, the American royalty. John and Ted's father made his fortune by bootlegging and other organized crime. Many say he bought his son's way into politics with the use of money and power. Now should I be forced to compete for survival against the Kennedys? Why should they be allowed to benefit from their past when it is a criminal past? Why should their kids be allowed to have a head start in life because their great grandfather was a criminal? Also in capitalism it is the rich still deciding what should be produced and what shouldn't. They are the ones in office and they keep it that way. How many leaders of a country are poor? So if it is the rich patronizing the rich, who is looking after the poor? You could have the greatest idea in the world and not be allowed to utilize it because a few people deem this so because they don't see how they will profit. No one gets rich without the rich okay'ing it first. They decide how much they will pay you, how well your stocks will do, if you can have a business where you'd like, if you can sell what you like, how much you have to give to them (and not just for social programs...the US spends only a fraction on social programs in comparison to military spending), where you can live, how long you may live, how well you will live. Do you think the gov't would slash most of your taxes if it went full blown capitalism? Do you think this would change in capitalism? Again why should these few people dictate how my life should be? I'd feel much better being controled by billions then being controlled by hundreds. I think we'd all be surprised to see how much really goes towards what you've deemed unnecessary social programs in comparison to everything else. "What, and if doesn't you're on your own, huh? Or rather yet again rely on those who DO make their businesses work to support you. Where is the incentive here to MAKE it work? If you fail or not, there is no real difference except that when you succeed your earnings and profits are taken away and if you fail you GET money. You really think that ppl should be forced by law rather than by choice as it is now to take on a business partner?" How many inventions have never seen light because of fear of failure and losing everything you have? Perhaps the lack of fear would inspire new inventions? Was it not a Socialist country that was in space first? Russia proved that it could compete technologically with a capitalist country, however their demise was the few forcing the many to produce what they saw fit and not what the people wanted. The incentive lies in bettering your life by bettering others. Teach so that you may be taught. Do you think that running a car company is more important than teaching children to read? How come a CEO of a car company makes more than a teacher? Was the invention of the car more important then the invention of written language and communication? In capitalism would this change? How is this possible if capitalism creates equality? I'm sure you could argue that people could strike until they get what they want but how many people do you know that could survive longer without pay then a company? Should teachers be allowed to strike until they all make as much as the CEO of General Motors? Whose more important in your eyes, the president of Nike or a 65 year old woman whose been teaching elementary students for 40 years how to read, write, do mathematics, delve into arts and helped form their social habits? Do you think she should be making the same as the president of Nike? In capitalism would everyone be allowed to strike in order to get what they think they deserve? If police decided that they want to make 1 million dollars a year, should they be allowed to strike until they are paid that? Or are they not allowed to be capitalists and help dictate their worth? So if workers wised up and realized that they can, by sheer numbers and the will of the many, be paid the same as the inventor should they strike? Or are they not allowed to capitalize themselves? Why shouldn't everyone just go on strike until they get paid the same as the wealthiest person in the company? The only reason people don't stand up for themselves and take back their equality is because the very people they would have to stand up to also control the supply of their needs. We are the donkeys and they hold the carrot. Perhaps the whole world should go on strike until we all get paid 50 dollars an hour without companies raising their prices? I think that's fair. Or should only the inventors and the rich be allowed to dictate people's worth? Do you think that the masses of workers shouldn't be allowed to dictate how much they get paid? And if we do truly control how much we get paid in today's society then why are there so many more minimum wage jobs than there are executive jobs? And if all the workers forced a strike until they all recieved equal pay (which could happen) then isn't that just the same as saying that because they can get it they are worth it? And if they are worth equal pay why aren't they getting it? I mean that's the aurgument for the overpaid rich, because Bill Gates can get 500 billion he is worth 500 billion. So if in theory, all workers through striking forced owner to the same pay as their employer, isn't that just the same as stating that we all really are worth the same? So why isn't it already this way? Why don't we all enjoy a comfortable life? Why cripple society by making one have to fight for their equality when you can advance it by giving everyone their equality? I hope one day people will see through the illusion of power and money and realize who really controls our society. I'm starting to babble again....hope this doesn't seem too redundant. " Ppl under socialism of course do not own great works of art, as it is the property of everybody, right? Yet again, what your talent comes up with is not your property but everybody else's. So if you are Picasso you should be glad if a museum gives you some money for your materials so that everybody is able to continuously enjoy the ingenuity of your work of course..." Is there really a difference between you giving someone 200 dollars for paint supplies so you can do your art and they can finish building their garage or you help building their garage for the same supplies? Why do you think it would be bad for you to paint for your food and your land and your car...isn't that essentially the same as capitalism but without all this fuss about me being worth more than you or you being worth more than me. Communism just cuts out the strain of fighting for equality. Is not the paint as important as the painting? If that is true then isn't the paint supplier as important as the painter? All communism does is help shatter the illusion of worth, helps eliminate the misunderstanding that your 40 hours are worth more or less than someone else's 40 hours. If we are all equal by right of birth then why should someone elses 80 years of life be worth more than my 80 years of life? Why should someone live poorly compared to others when they have made the same effort in life? If a person that invented something becomes a billionaire are they really contributing to society or does the negetive effects of their greed outweigh the benefits of their invention? That is to say do the benefits of Microsoft outweigh the problems caused by one person controlling 500 billion dollars worth of assests? For one to have so much in a capitalist society means that many must have so little. In a capitalist society the world is only worth so much and if that is true then so is the previous statement. So if by having so much money and power it causes negetive things to happen how can one say that the "inventors" are really worth what they get when in fact they may actually be lowering the quality of society, not through their invention but through their greed. Now if you say that someone should be responsible with the money in a capitalist society and should contribute socially then what is the sense of having capitalism? If you say that after 1 billion dollars a person should give back to society then isn't that trying to put a cap on the very idea of capitalism. And if there is no "cap" on capitalism then shouldn't one strive to own everything. If one shouldn't then why bother with capitalism? The whole point of capitalism is to make as much profit as you can....so should one person be allowed to posess all the riches of the world....no of course not and I'm pretty sure you will agree with that....so if they shouldn't then why are you so in love with capitalism? That is to say that one person should be allowed to make as much money legally as they want thereby introducing the notion that one could possess all the wealth in the world yet they should not be allowed at the same time. Also if you tried to stop monopolies then once again you are moving away from capitalism, you are putting a limit on how successful they may be and you are taking away their capitalistic right to play with supply and demand. That would be the same as saying you can only own so much, how can that be true capitalism then??? It would make no sense to create a society where one could have all while many had nothing. To me that is not a society....whoaaa, this is getting to be a long response....sorry. "So if you want to survive you must first of all give in order to receive?" Don't you have to work first before you get paid in a capitalist society? " Like if you are a farmer you are not allowed to first take food off your land for yourself but rather have to sell ALL your products and then see what society gives back to you as a little loan for your effort in feeding them?" You make it sound like there would be two carrots for thousands of people....why would you care about giving out your food if there was an abundance of it? You make it sound like the world can't produce enough food unless people pay for it....Canada alone intentionally rots enough grain each year to probably feed most of the world. We give so much of it away, (but not even close to what we waste), instead of putting it on the market. WHy? Because of foolish trade agreements saying that we'll get lower tariffs on other items if we don't sell so much grain....can ya believe that??? So why do you think that a farmer would struggle so and he be left with nothing? The farmer would also get to share the crops of other farmers. You're looking at communism as the individual working for society when in fact it is actually society working for the individual. Why do you think that everyone wouldn't be well fed and well clothed and have a good roof over their heads? I mean isn't that the large part of the American Dream equation? In communism production could not only be just as high but even more effecient thereby causing lower working hours and more leisure time without a decrease in living standards....isn't that what everyone works for anyways....to be able to make enough money so that they can have the freedom to relax and enjoy life??? Isn't that the American Dream? Just think of what communism would do...it would eliminate all those pesky telemarketers, junk mail and those stubborn bills would be a thing of the past...isn't that alone enough to make ya wanna switch "Listen you childless hard working neighbour of mine. I brought into this world a wonderful present to society in form of 15 children. I therefore command you to give me your money for this wonderful gift as a reward for my having these kids and bringing them up in the first place." But you're forgetting that in a communist country those 15 children will grow up to work for your benefit. Them working for you because you have worked for them. The quality of life for the elderly would be tremendous in a communist society...a lot better than it is today, you wouldn't have the elderly who worked all their life living in poverty. Also what about crime?...hard to say but in communism why would someone steal something they already have? Why would someone steal something if they knew it would just cause them more work later to replace? Why would someone kill you for something they already have? "But as to "knowing your idea better than others" I am afraid it doesn't take an Einstein to understand how to run a paper shop." No Einstein probably couldn't run a paper shop....but he sure used a lot of paper. It does however take a person experienced in paper production to run a paper shop. If you owned a paper production plant would you hire a manager that has never even seen how paper is made or would you hire someone who has mastered all levels of paper production? Why do you think this would change in communism? Why do you think that the people wouldn't want the most effecient person organizing the work detail? Why wouldn't you as a worker want someone there who knows the most about what you are doing? "Only physicists and mathematicians maybe can claim to understand their idea better than others do." Then how does one scientist surpass the other? " what a rosy world you dream of Brad…" I couldn't agree more "Yes but only one person had the initial idea. Again, why should an idea become public property just cause it gives other ppl work?" But why should the work of many become the property of one individual who had a thought that wasn't even totally original. You may say it's because the individual is taking all the risks, but what about the person who goes to work for a company....what if your idea fails and they are out of work as well....the have their livelyhood at stake as well yet they don't always prosper with the company. "Yeah cause we are all children who need to be given pocket money by our parent "mother state"." There is no mother state....you are the mother state in a communist society. If you abuse the system in a communist society you are only abusing yourself. You could not get ahead by cheating the system or manipulating the system to your whims because you will not superceed your neighbour as far as monetary worth is concerned. It would be in society's best interest to protect your interests and in your best interest to protect society's interests. You could have your cake and eat it too. "In capitalism you either work or drown." I'll tell that to the middle class who have lost everything due to stock and currency manipulation by the greedy and the wealthy. There are a few people out there who due to their buying power can crush a company with one phone call and control the dollar value of a whole country....and they often play god for a few more dollars. I'll also tell that to the 3200 people who were just laid off by The CIBC (Canadian Bank) as their reward for helping break profit records once again this year, you're right those lazy bastards should drown. Or maybe I'll swing by my old job and apoligize to my boss for not working hard enough...cause that must be the real reason he laid me off....ohhh, I forgot I'd have to fly to Hawai to see him in his new mansion that he bought. Maybe after that we could go to Flint Michigan and tell the people there that the reason GM left was because they weren't working hard enough so they must drown too.....mmmmmm....kinda funny that robbery/murders/substance abuse and all sorts of other goodies skyrocketed after the plants all left town....kinda funny too that GM was posting record profits when they left....Flint went from not even being on the list of "Worst Places in America To Live" to the number one spot in only a few short years, I guess the ranking system must've flooded their market with new companies just waiting to move into that town and they couldn't decide which company to let in so they choose none....what a rosey world you paint....can I borrow those petal glasses please so I may see the beauty you see In communism there wouldn't be the worse place to live because the standard of living would be the same across the board."You are rewarded for ability and effort." Please refer to my examples above. "In socialism you are rewarded according to your need." In socialism you are still rewarded by your work...productivity is productivity in both capitalism and communism. One however rewards you with equality and the other rewards you with a rank based on someone else's opinion of your worth. "Why work if you can just have more kids instead?" So I take it that is your dream in life....someone to pay you for making babies? Are you the only one with goals? If you lived in a communist society do you think you'd want to just sit around and have babies? Why do you think that is what others would want? You are assuming that all people are lazy and want nothing more out of life other than to sit around.....I guess that's why we all post here without being paid for it.....and I guess that's why Ron has generously set up this place....Yep I guess we are all just motivated by money. "And yes I agree owners who do not work are as much looters and moochers as the persons living of welfare cause they can." Then what's the point of capitalism if you can't sit back and enjoy your wealth? I mean if they make enough money off of their idea then why should they work if they don't want to? How are they abusing the system if they are succeeding in the constraints of the system? Why invent a car if you can't sit back and enjoy the wealth from the invention? Your idea of capitalism is kinda getting foggy. In one hand you are saying a person should be allowed to get super rich and enjoy all the benefits of wealth while in the other hand you are saying that you abuse the system if you don't remain as productive as your employees and indulge in the liberties of wealth....basically it sounds like your saying that people should be allowed to get rich and relax but if they do they are bastards?????? "How do they have a say in their own lives if they are neither free nor have the right to own anything?" Would you rather own a chair or share a house? Would you rather own a tree or share the world? And you do own things in communism...you own a bit of everything in fact....you are an equal partner in everything produced. You are an equal shareholder in the largest company. You own a piece of every house, of every car, of every gold bar, of every restaurant and of every movie studio. There would be nothing in society that you could say that you do not own a piece of.....now who can say that in a capitalist society other than the single theoretical winner. "Precisely. They are controlled by the state and one individual has no say. You only have a say if you are a collective and unfortunately ppl are starting to resign themselves to that." Yes we are controlled by the state....but you have neglected to inform us who the state is controlled by or is it just that you do not realize that the gov't is controlled by corporations....these same corporations that you want to unleash fully upon this world. And who controls the corporations....only a handful of people. So if this is true then I guess 5 percent of the population controls ninety five percent of the world....the few individuals control the many and perhaps the problems you refer to are created by the individual and not this loathesome community you are so set against.....The politician says what he needs to say to get elected (have you ever seen one that has kept all their promises???), then they do the minimum to stay in office, they continually give themselves raises and new and improved perks, they lower taxes for big business and the rich (who can actually afford to pay taxes) and raise them for poor and middle class and their campaign is funded by large corporation lobbiests so in essence when you vote you might actually just be voting for a company or an unknown third party. Why else do you think the environment hasn't been cleaned up yet??? Is it because the people don't want that or is it because no matter how loud you scream they won't listen to anything other then the sounds of crisp dollar bills being brown bagged to them by the corporations....How many poor politicians in higher office have you ever seen? I mean even the ones who started out poor seem to be pretty wealthy by the time they make it to the capital. I guess politicians just work harder than the majority....poor souls...I should send them a thank-you bouquet "Socialism is not a synonym with freedom. Quite in the contrary. It not only makes you a slave to society but also asks you to give up your individuality, your soul and your brain willingly and cheerfully for the "good of society"." Once again you got it all backwards. Communism makes society a slave to the individual for it is the individual who dictates by voting what his or her future will be. You seem to be stuck on this communist image of nine, red clad evil men hatching plans to control your life when it is actually you controlling them. All communism asks of the individual is to give up their greed, put aside theit petty squabbles of who is worth more and work as individuals for the betterment of not only one's self but for the betterment of each other. " And if you don't then they take you by force." Yeah I guess in capitalism we can all work for ourselves....I guess we'll all be able to open our own business....how quaint...7 billion little businesses....Now if we can't all open our own businesses then wouldn't it be safe to say we are "forced" to work for someone else? And if we are "forced" to work for someone else then are we truly dictating our worth? and are we truly free? Perhaps the capitalists are Borgs and you have already been assimilated? "Just ask my primary school teacher on how "willing" I was "to fit in." I did and she said you used to push the other kids out of the sandbox and charge them a dollar to get back in while stating that you were just expressing your right to own both land and intellectual property. She also said you had a lot of trouble sharing the art supplies with the other kids It's funny that you mention school, just had a thought on it. If the corporations control the politicians and the politicains control the school's curiculum (sp?) then isn't it actually the corporations that control what our children learn....maybe that's why people now go to University to be able to get a job and not to get an actual education....If you don't believe this statement please go ask some University students why they're in University. We are being breed into corperate complacent drones. Look at the kids today....never been a larger, more eager to be a consumer generation. Not only do corporations control the supply, they now also control the demand. They not only create the products they also create the consumer. People are eager to buy because they're being taught to buy, and whose doing the teaching, the very people supplying the products....how dainty....so sweet. Why do they teach business and marketing in high school but not philosophy. In Canada high school students are forced to take at least 3 business courses yet not a single course in philosophy is offered....I don't think they even allow religious courses anymore. They don't teach philosophy because philosophy teaches free thinking. I better stop here because I'm starting to sound like an Oliver Stone conspiracy movie Sorry for yaking your eyes off JIM: YOu poor misguided creature You are my problem child aren't ya."I just thought I'd pop in and say hi to Angel (hi Angel!) and insert my two drachmas." Why does everything have to be about money with you capitalists "Government agencies are not driven by the need to make money ... they are driven by the need to justify spending at least as much money as they did the year before so that they do not lose funding. I think "the public good" or "utilitarian" label is more often than not a mere public image statement. What is really important to a government agency is remaining a government agency." I don't see this as relevant to an aurguement against communism. An irresponsible gov't is an irresponsible gov't. Are you implying that if corporations were allowed to freely roam the range that gov't spending would cease? Or are you just saying that a communist country with a poor system of gov't would fail much like any system with poor management? In communism (theoretically) a gov't agency that was not needed would be disbanded until needed again and the manpower would be dissolved into other areas of production based upon the wants of many individuals (which we call a society). "But there is a major difference between the corporate and government approach to money" So true but how is this different in capitalism? In a workable communist model the gov't would be the people, the corporation would be the people and the people would be the individuals so if the gov't was to misuse funds they would only be hurting themselves so it would make no sense. In communism there would be absoluting no gain for anyone to keep a gov't agency going that wasn't needed. However in capitalism there usually is, the reason....someone is making a heaping plate of cash. And in communism you'd actually be losing money (productivity) by irresponsible use of manpower. "Corporations, on the other hand, are profit driven. If a corporation makes money then some of it finds its way into the hands of its best employees (a good business knows that the best way to keep its best employees is with financial incentive)." Yep, like I told Angel, I'll run down to the head office of CIBC and thank them for firing those lazy 3200 people who helped them make record billion dollar profits this year....and the thing with banks is that there will always be X amount of dollars in this world, so why should they care whose employed and who isn't.....that cash has still got to be banked....and it's easier and more profitable for them if there are only two people with a billion dollars instead of those pesky masses banking two billion collectively. Maybe one day there will only be three bank employees helping two customers. "Corporate spending is most often discretionary, while government spending is arbitrary. Corporations spend money in hopes of making money." And that's what I want running the world, I'll be glad when all those nasty rainforests are gone so that I can make a buck or two.....who do we compete against if one corporation owns the world? Am I supposed to feel that I must compete against China all my life? Am I their sworn enemy for the sake of corporation competition? Am I supposed to compete against the world all my life???? Or would it be easier to ally with it and work with the world, not against it? Would you have a gov't only build a road for the people if those in power thought they could make money doing it....I mean Christ...they don't just randomly print up money, we give it to them to distribute it how we see fit....or at least that was how it was supposed to work and could work if we were allowed to vote for the best person again. Are you telling me you'd rather have a corporation decide if you can have a road or would you rather have a say in it? Are you saying you'd rather have two people voice what you may or may not have rather than you getting to voice your own opinion? "If a corporation chooses to exploit its workers by not paying a fair wage, a competitor hires its most skilled workers and the original corporation loses money (a nice checks and balance system, in my opinion. Not perfect but nice nonetheless)." And what if all companies decide to exploit you? What if there are only a handful of people to work for? Have you heard of price fixing Jim....very common practise in the oil business, gold business, farming, etc. Now if the majority of prices are controlled by a few wouldn't it be safe to say that the same few control the majority of wages? I guess we all are happy with how much money we make then??? Cause if we weren't then we'd all just quit our jobs and go work for those noble competitors who will pay you what you think your worth. It's amazing how all wages seem to be relatively the same for all fields in most corporations, I guess everyone is getting paid the same because we are all getting paid what we think we are worth, because we the people dictate how much we will make and not the corperations deciding such things??? I guess those minimum wage McDonald's workers are dictating how much they get paid, I guess McDonald's has stretched their budget to the breaking point and can't afford a few extra dollars (should I send Uncle Ron a get well card?).....or should they just quit cause as soon as they do that the job market just explodes with opportunity or the companies smarten up and will pay them more? Or should they try and start a union and hope they aren't fired the next day? Have you ever visited the poor side of town (I don't mean that in a hurtful or condenscending way, I'm just trying to illustrate a point), there aren't a lot of job opportunities in an impoverished place. And corporations know this and prey upon these people, and as disparity grows between classes and the middle class becomes extinct...and the lower class is more prevelant then there will be more people to manipulate and control and the few will easily be able to control the worth of the individual...where is that magic freedom capitalism speaks of. If you don't believe me why don't you ask a thousand different people why they work where they do and as much as they do. The majority will say because they can't afford to quit their job or that the job market is so tough now. Which brings me to my next point....If there are fewer jobs than workers in a monetary based society, who controls the worth of the workers? The workers or those supplying the jobs? If companies are making more and more money yet are using fewer employees, what will the forcast call for...more or fewer jobs? What does supply and demand dictate if supply is low and demand high? Kinda perpetuates the "Golden Rule" doesn't it? In a communist society if there were few jobs and a lot of workers there would be more leisure time without a decrease in the standard of living instead of widespread poverty and the social ailments that seem to follow along. I've heard stories of the depression era where people would kill over jobs....yet the business owner would still be living in his mansion. I once heard that more millioniares were created then dismantled during the depression (though I have no stats to back this up)....why?....because it was easier for the few to exploit the many. Do you think these workers were paid a fair wage? Did they dictate their worth? I guess I'll go to the sweat shops in India and tell them all they're getting paid what they are worth....maybe I'll go to Indonesia as well and tell them not to be so uppity, they're getting paid what they're worth and if they don't like it they should just go over to one of the many other jobs provided by the higher paying competition. Sometimes I wonder what people see when they look at the world today? Do they see the slums or do they just see the shiney, pretty skyscrapers? And why do most seem to want to help those inside the skyscrapers instead of those in the slums? Why do we leave it to the poor to help the poor when it is our very system that has created the poor to begin with. No one wakes up in the morning and decides they want to live in poverty. Now if no one wants to be poor why is there so much widespread poverty? Where is the equality that gives everyone the opportunity to be wealthy? Now if no one wants to be poor and everyone wants to be wealthy, yet there are more poor people than wealthy people, how can one say that capitalism is the answer when it is this very system that has caused such lack of fullfillment of desires? Are there so many poor people because they are the lazy? Do they deserve to be poor? If they don't deserve to be poor why are they still poor? In a society that claims to promote equality, why are there people who don't deserve their fates still suffering? And why are there those who don't deserve their wealth still living like gods? "Government redistribution of wealth is arbitrary spending. No one governs the spending process except the "spender" (the government). How is this not a loss of personal freedom? There are no unions or competitors to help police arbitrary, government spending. And this encroachment into personal freedom never stops with financial freedom (again, a lesson learned from history). " And corporations idea of redistribution of wealth is non-existent. They'll only give you a dollar if you can give them two....with only X amount of dollars available how will this math equate to equality??? Once again you are discussing an irresponsible gov't and its spending habits and not truly addressing communism. In communism the individuals that make up the masses would dictate gov't spending or allocation of manpower. Would you cheat yourself out of money? They are currently not responsible for the people because of a capitalist society. Politicians are only doing what everyone wants from capitalists and that is to make money. Are politicians in a capitalist society banned from making more money than their employers (the people)? No because they are doing what the system dictates, profiting as much as they can. They are not accountable for their actions because they are not taxed like the rest of us, they are neither spending big corporation's money nor their own but rather the working class's money. Why should they care how much they spend....none of it belongs to them...they are not directly affected by tax hikes? Do you think a politician in a capitalist society would begin to work for the people or even more so for the corporations....and do you think the corporations would be working for the people or for themselves??? Where is this freedom you speak of in capitalism?????? Do you think if a politician thought something they'd do would hurt their standard of living that they would still do it? No, and a communist society forces a person to become accountable for their actions because their actions will always effect themselves....or is being held accountable for one's behaviour a violation of an individual's rights And if you unleash the capitalists who will govern them? You talk of watch dogs for the gov't but if corporations are allowed to dictate policies then who will be watching them? If we are all working for a corporation how will we be able to decide on social policies or the allocation of both money and manpower? My fingers are now gnarled and permenantly cramped and contorted....I hope both you and Angel are happy now I've gone back and added and erased so much of this post already so I hope it hasn't become too hard to follow.....my apoligize if my rant is all over the place.I'd like to just take the time to now thank both of you and Brad and actually everyone else whose posted on this thread for keeping such an interesting debate going and inpiring more thought on this topic then I thought possible by myself....hold on a sec I have a phone call from Red Square HQ...."yes Chairman Mao...right away Chairman Mao", I'm sorry but I gotta go, I've just been elected into the Communist Hall of Fame for the longest post on this subject. One more thingy before I go....I'd just like to say I can't wait till all the big corporations dominate the world and we all work for them....cause we'll have to in order to live....then truly all our great ideas and inventions will solely belong to us and not the company we had to develop them for....cause then and only then will we truly be paid what we are worth. Great ideas will come to light and fantastic inventions, like a car that is reliable or a new cure for diseases.....or have people already done that???? I can't remember...I don't think so because if these people had such great ideas why aren't those ideas still around....Oh well, I guess they couldn't have been all that useful, I'm sure the general population was widely informed that they had the cure for ulcers but decided they didn't want it by "dollar voting"....must by the same reason why the affordable car that could last twenty years without repairs never made it to the market....the people just didn't want it, cause in capitalism we are well informed consumers who dictate their supply and demand. Also I can't wait until the sign at the airport reads...."Welcome to WalMart's Canada"....oh goodey-gumdrops....my parents will be so proud that I'll have a corperate job. Okay I think that's enough sarcasm from me for one night....hope I didn't peeve anyone off too much....I'm sure you all realize by now that "I come in Peace" and mean you earthlings no harm Plus I just get so angry when I feel my individuality is being threatened by you capitalists Take care everyone and thanks again for your thoughts and for putting up with me ...like ya have a choice.Trevor |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Hi Trevor, I am sorry but I am tired of this. I cannot state over and over, again and again that freedom is my primary goal, that making a quick buck by exploitation is neither my nor capitalism's primary goal but that capitalism is the only form of government that will ensure FREEDOM. So this will be the last time I reply to you on this. Yes I would rather own ONE tree completely rather than co-own the world and have everybody own what ever I think I own at the same time. I don't understand how you can believe you own ANYTHING when millions of other ppl own it too. And again, no I do not want other ppl to work for me so that I can go fishing in the evening. THAT would be exploitation to me, to make them work so I can have fun or vice versa. And no, ppl do not hold jobs they hate cause we live in a capitalistic world. And I am sorry that you do not see that I might look down on rich idle parasites as much as look down on idle poor parasites but that I do not see that as a reason to take their freedom away from them by law. Everybody is free to be idle as they wish. But I do not see it as their right to get some of MY money when I WORK for it. And I am sorry for you that you are so naive as to think that socialism breeds hard work. Makes me laugh actually but it is a sad little laugh. I have known many ppl in this socialistic London who quite plainly told me, that they choose not work as the state gave them money anyway. And if you were to say that these are the abusers of the system then I would like to tell you that capitalism knows no legally enforced social benefit taxes and would make such parasites an impossibility. Do not talk to me about how so called capitalistic countries' abuse of the tax payers' money. The very notion of taxes other than the ones I have discussed with you at length, are against the idea of capitalism. And no the parasites that capitalism breeds are of a totally different and far more tolerable sort. You might think that they are exploiting you but I say even if the do not work and still earn money, they also still give something to society: jobs in the companies they own. What does a poor parasite give? And no I am not saying that all poor ppl are parasites and no not all ppl can work. But many can; yet under socialism there is no control as to who can and who for example just breeds children to get more money. Under capitalism the VOLUNTEER charities would organise such help and would be very able to control the legitimacy of a claim. And no, just cause I think doing charity is a good thing, I STILL do not see that it should be made a law. I DON'T want to be told what I am allowed to keep from MY EFFORTS. And NO, factory workers or schoolteachers should not earn the same amount of money as the inventor of penicillin. Why? Cause there would be no children to raise if it weren't for penicillin. And yes the inventor of the microchip should earn more than the ppl who would manufacture it in factories. WHY would they earn as much as him?? By what right do they have a claim on his brain? I do not get your logic there. You don't think that building a company around an idea and therefore providing work for ppl is a good thing but rather that it is some person trying to exploit others??? EHHHH? What if I invented something that was truly great and would advance society by leaps and bounds? Under socialism I would be faced with two possibilities: 1) Either choose to surrender my idea to the ppl willingly and get paid the same as everyone who didn't have the idea and who are therefore rather than me entitled by law to reaping all the benefits, or 2) I will produce the thing by myself with no help from others. Therefore making my work as exclusive and as expensive as a Patek Philippe (the greatest watches in the world)… Oh… but then no… I get it... your gov't would take my idea by FORCE and give to those who NEED to benefit from my idea. Give it to those who have a legal right to it by not having had the same idea, no matter if I do condone the transaction or got paid for my inventions, or not. Cause why should I have any right to it? My brain belongs to everyone after all. PLUS giving ppl (who had no job before) a paid job by asking them to build my idea is of course to exploit them if I do not give them the same amount of money I would make. Cause how dare I give them work and not give them an automatic right to any money I make out of MY idea, right? WRONG! Freedom doesn't mean that you have a claim on other ppl's efforts. Freedom means the right to trade goods for goods and to KEEP what you buy. Where is your freedom if you trade something for nothing? How can you say that you are free when you do not even own the product of your brain? NO I am not being melodramatic. This IS what you are advocating. If you cannot understand the fairness in FREE trade between FREE equals then you truly have no notion of what freedom means. Yes we are born equal and yes we are all free. But that means that YOU do NOT own ME and I do NOT OWN YOU. Nor do I wish to. I find it disturbing that you want to have a legal claim on ppl's life and are actually willing to put ppl in jail for daring to not want to share their effort with you. By what right do you claim their efforts? Do you really want to, BY LAW, work and live and breathe for ALL the ppl in the world rather than choose the company and the boss you want to work for? You really think freedom means having your salary dictated by a gov't rather then negotiating it between you and your boss?? Do you really think you are being exploited when someone asks you to do an office job for a certain amount of money in exchange? That freedom is to not earn less than your neighbour but equally not be allowed to earn more, no matter what your effort is? You really think your individuality is ensured in a society where everybody has a claim on your time and your life? You really think that you give ppl FREEDOM when you say that they are not allowed to judge what to do with their earnings? Where in fact you deny them earnings all together? And you know what? That little remark about me as a child? You were right! My grandmother bought me some watercolours when I was a kid and I loved that beautiful box. I was super careful with the box and kept it really clean as it meant something to me. When I took it to kindergarten, the other kids wanted to share my colours but judging how they treated the "common property" paint boxes I did not want to share mine with them. There was however one nasty little boy who hit me and pulled my hair and called me selfish and mean and forced me to share my colours with him cause he had none. He destroyed the colours as he unlike me had no value for them. And you know what else? Ever since that day I have observed that ppl do not treat "common property" the way they treat their own property. Ppl pay road taxes, so in a way it is their road but they spit their chewing gum out where ever they feel like it. Do you think they do that in their own garden? I doubt it. And another thing, your statement about the Russians being first in space is a very poor example. Do you have any idea how the population had to bleed for this to be possible? Did you know that the scientists who built the rockets lived like the tsars yet where under constant surveillance and were about as free as a bird in a golden cage? Did you know that they worked under threat of life? Or did you think that that space rocket got built cause some ambitious free men had a dream and their friendly gov't patted them on the heads and say yes my children you shall have your dream? They were forced to work. Great freedom, great achievement! Did you know that Moscow's subways are made of marble? Did you know that they were built by forced slave labour and that the workers died of starvation? Or did you think that the workers were paid? Did you know that Moscow has skyscrapers built by men who also starved cause they got no money for their efforts? Efforts they did not willingly make btw. And do you know why these things were imposed on the population? Cause the bolshies could not admit that the US had such tall buildings where as they still lived in extreme poverty when their "5 year plan" didn't work out after 10- 20- 30- 70 years. And did you also know that the workers were told that their reward was the honour of working for their fellow men and the prestige of their country and to ask to be paid for that, was to betray "mother Russia"? And no, the US NEVER knew such hardships as the Russians did, not even during the depression. So please leave these human rights violating countries out of your statements. Unless you want to tell me that they truly are the examples you aspire to? Do not shout: what right do fat cats have to their inherited money!? Rather tell me by what right you think YOU have a claim to their money? You say their ancestors were looters and therefore they should not be allowed to keep that money, as they did not earn it. And in the same breath you say that YOU have a claim on that money. How so? How did YOU earn it? Just by being alive and having less then them? Is that how money is earned in your opinion? Enough. Angel "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
TREVOR: I'd say she handed you your hammer and sickle on a bed of maple leaves, my friend. I'm a little tired after Nan's Sestina Project (made Blair Witch look like the Teletubbies) but I promise to go to bed early so that "your problem child" can help Angel beat back the Reds. (again )Jim "If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello, Angel, sorry to hear you're getting tired of this discussion and are taking your ball and going home. I will however respond and hopefully inspire you to continue a discussion which I am rather enjoying. Not to try and tell you how to live your life but do you always walk out of a discussion once you have stated your aurgument....Seems someone was sick the day they were teaching communication skills in class "I am sorry but I am tired of this. I cannot state over and over, again and again that freedom is my primary goal, that making a quick buck by exploitation is neither my nor capitalism's primary goal but that capitalism is the only form of government that will ensure FREEDOM." You state that you want to ensure Freedom yet you want us all to live by yours and similar thought lined people's ideals. Does not mine and Brad's freedom of choice of lifestyle count. Obviously both sides presented should be able to choose which form of gov't they want. I'd say a democratic vote but as you've stated before, you do not believe in the majority deciding things for the individual....so that leaves us at a standoff....who should move and who should stay. Should I, who has invested 27 yrs in my country be forced to leave (though that would be a violation of my rights) or another 27 yr old who wants a more true capitalist society? "Yes I would rather own ONE tree completely rather than co-own the world and have everybody own what ever I think I own at the same time." So be it then, pick out a star in the sky and it can be yours while the rest of us share in the universe. Sorry you don't think there is a beauty and an inescapable truth of being a part of everything. "I don't understand how you can believe you own ANYTHING when millions of other ppl own it too." So if a married couple buys a house is it not owned by anyone? Apply this on a larger scale. It's a shame that you'd rather own the 2 dollar pony then share in owning the million dollar stable. "And again, no I do not want other ppl to work for me so that I can go fishing in the evening. THAT would be exploitation to me, to make them work so I can have fun or vice versa." How is it exploitation if an equal effort is put in by all sides? It's the same concept as your visionary capitalism. One person works 40 hours so you may rest 40 hours and then you work 40 hours so they may rest 40 hours. "And no, ppl do not hold jobs they hate cause we live in a capitalistic world." Maybe not entirely but do you think it doesn't at least factor into the equation? It must for we live in a capitalist society (though not a true one or one by your definition..perhaps a new name for your capitalism is needed...Angelism )"But I do not see it as their right to get some of MY money when I WORK for it." Wow, that's the same way I feel when my tax dollars go to help some large company develop a new product...I just love having to pay for my right to work. "And I am sorry for you that you are so naive as to think that socialism breeds hard work." Not half as sorry as I am for you being so naive as to think capitalism breeds equality and protects citizen's rights (or at least what you've decided should be everyone's rights). I don't think communism breeds hard work and I have stated several times that I don't think true communism could currently work because people aren't responsible enough to look out for one another. "Makes me laugh actually but it is a sad little laugh." Do you always laugh at a person's beliefs? Guess ya giggle, but a sad giggle, at the Muslims for being so naive for their different beliefs. I mean you are calling millions of people naive and laughing at their beliefs or do you think that I am the only believer in communism? "And if you were to say that these are the abusers of the system then I would like to tell you that capitalism knows no legally enforced social benefit taxes and would make such parasites an impossibility." Well I got to give it to ya there. A very valid point but the lop side of this is that it would create a huge amount of crime due to poverty and you'd just be paying for their welfare in a prison. Why not save them and yourself the effort of "forcing" them into crime, then catching them in order to give them just what they asked for in the first place....A way to satisfy their needs. I'd rather live in a communist society where the laziest 10 percent has the same good standard of living as the hard working 90 percent and be able to feel safe in society then live in a capitalist society where the laziest 10 percent are trying to steal from the 90 percent and kill them if they have to in order to try and "get by". "Do not talk to me about how so called capitalistic countries' abuse of the tax payers' money." Why did ya already talk to your shrink about that one? "The very notion of taxes other than the ones I have discussed with you at length, are against the idea of capitalism." So your for freedom, eh? So we're all free in a capitalist society yet forced to pay taxes on things we may not feel is necessary? For example, I'm sure you feel roads are a necessity and therefore in your capitalist ideology we'd all be taxed in order to pay for it. Now say the road leads to a place I never want to go, say I don't own a car and have no intention of using it ever but I have to cross it in order to get to my job, should I still have to pay for it? I don't want it, I don't need it, so what's the deal? You've stated before that you do believe that education should be subsidized because it does directly benefit you. If someone believes that it doesn't and won't chip into the pot what should happen? Will you violate this individual's rights? Same with policing...if someone feels that they don't want to have policing for themselves nor prisons should they be forced to pay? Say someone believes that he/she is always responsible for their own protection, will they be forced to pay or will everyone else have to pay even more for policing? It seems you think we should all be free to live by your definitions of freedom? How can we all be free if we are living in a world defined by another? "You might think that they are exploiting you but I say even if the do not work and still earn money, they also still give something to society: jobs in the companies they own." You know I honestly really enjoy these discussions but I'd wish you'd address at least some of the questions I ask instead of trying to bend and contort everything to fit your arguement (leave that trick to me please )...Does the benefit of the creation of jobs by a company outweigh its creation of problems? Sure Bill Gates has created thousands of jobs but at the same time hasn't he also crushed many other competitors both large and small while not fully absorbing its workforce? Doesn't the possesion of 500 billion dollars in assest by one individual create some problems as well?"What does a poor parasite give?" An example of how not to be. "Under capitalism the VOLUNTEER charities would organise such help and would be very able to control the legitimacy of a claim." Who are these VOLUNTEERS you speak of? I know you're speaking theoritically, you're version of Utopia, just like my version of no corruption, crime or lack of work ethics in communism but I just gotta say the flaw in your system is the same flaw so prevelant in mine and that is human nature. You're assuming that once we switch to a hardline right capitalist society that everyone will just start giving to charities and volunteering their time because now they are not "forced". "And NO, factory workers or schoolteachers should not earn the same amount of money as the inventor of penicillin. Why? Cause there would be no children to raise if it weren't for penicillin." Did the gentleman who invented penicillin teach himself all those fancy mathematical and chemistry equations? Did he teach himself how to read and write? There would be no inventor of penicillin if it wasn't for school teachers and then there'd by no children either....so if both points cancel each other out then how are they not equal? "And yes the inventor of the microchip should earn more than the ppl who would manufacture it in factories. WHY would they earn as much as him?? By what right do they have a claim on his brain? I do not get your logic there. You don't think that building a company around an idea and therefore providing work for ppl is a good thing but rather that it is some person trying to exploit others??? EHHHH?" But if collectively all workers come up with the idea of legally striking until everyone is paid the same then why shouldn't they be allowed to profit how they see fit from their idea? How is this exploitation? I'm guessing this was the point (about the workers passively forcing equal wages) you were trying to address with your statement, please correct me if I'm wrong. " What if I invented something that was truly great and would advance society by leaps and bounds? Under socialism I would be faced with two possibilities: 1) Either choose to surrender my idea to the ppl willingly and get paid the same as everyone who didn't have the idea and who are therefore rather than me entitled by law to reaping all the benefits," I'm sorry that you don't see how advancing society by leaps and bounds would directly benifit you. Are you one of them people who live in a bubble away from our shanty shacked world? So if someone invented the cure for AIDS and wanted only to use it for themselves if needed and was deadfast against sharing it with the rest of the world, should they be forced to share it? Under your definition of capitalism and it's glorious freedom, that person could do so."2) I will produce the thing by myself with no help from others. Therefore making my work as exclusive and as expensive as a Patek Philippe (the greatest watches in the world)…" God bless Patek Philippe for his invention that has progressed society by leaps and bounds. Do you think that in a theoritical communist country that as soon as you grew a potato that men in dark trenchcoats would come and take it away and then divide it up into 7 billion little pieces. What you share is the work load in production and not in your personal life. You could make watches for yourself as long as you didn't do it at work. Do you think that if you built a kite that all of a sudden you'd have to build a billion more? Of course not. But if you suggested that the people might want kites and then the people voted in agreement then a percent of the workforce would be relocated or activated to meet that new demand. Do you think that if you painted something that the evil red men would bust down your door and take it to a gallery? Of course not unless your job was an artist then what you paint for work would "belong" to everyone and what you paint on your spare time is yours. Just like in capitalism, if you have a good idea at work it belongs to the company but if you have one during personal times then it is yours. How many people have had great ideas "borrowed" by the companies they work for and have never seen an extra cent for it. " Oh… but then no… I get it... your gov't would take my idea by FORCE and give to those who NEED to benefit from my idea. Give it to those who have a legal right to it by not having had the same idea, no matter if I do condone the transaction or got paid for my inventions, or not. Cause why should I have any right to it? My brain belongs to everyone after all. PLUS giving ppl (who had no job before) a paid job by asking them to build my idea is of course to exploit them if I do not give them the same amount of money I would make." I'm think I smell a little sarcasm....did someone not get their afternoon nap? Imagine that forcing a fat man to give a piece of bread to a starving child....ugggg...how revolting."Cause how dare I give them work and not give them an automatic right to any money I make out of MY idea, right?" Yes and how dare the workers ask to be paid a decent wage for building your invention!!!!!! Cause I mean, once you think of something "BOOM!!!" there it appears. "WRONG! Freedom doesn't mean that you have a claim on other ppl's efforts. Freedom means the right to trade goods for goods and to KEEP what you buy. Where is your freedom if you trade something for nothing? How can you say that you are free when you do not even own the product of your brain?" How is trading an invention for the hard work of people considered nothing? I'll tell ya what's seems for nothing. Nothing is delivering furniture ten hours a day so you can live sitting on the poverty line while a waitress delivers a plate of Filet Mignon and makes a hundred dollars in tips in five hours. Are both not a necessity? And if they are both needed why aren't they both paid the same. If all NEEDS are equal because of their necessity for survival then why aren't they paid the same, (yes I know I stated this in my previous response but you always seem to conveniently neglect to respond to any valid points I may have)? "NO I am not being melodramatic." Said the girl who capitalised all of "NO" Not even a little over the top Al Pacino-shh melodramatics????? "But that means that YOU do NOT own ME and I do NOT OWN YOU. Nor do I wish to. I find it disturbing that you want to have a legal claim on ppl's life and are actually willing to put ppl in jail for daring to not want to share their effort with you. By what right do you claim their efforts?" You really made me think on this one. I believe we all have claim on the lives and actions of every other person (or more broadly stated, everything) because all actions, or everything, that takes place directly or indirectly effects everyone. Why shouldn't I have a say in how much money Bill Gates makes if his wealth does effect me? Why shouldn't I have a say in what or what shouldn't be invented if it effects me? Shouldn't I have a say in someone building a nuclear bomb even if they probably never intend to use it? Shouldn't I have a say in genetic manipulation of animals and vegetables if I am forced to eat them? Shouldn't I have claim on the forrest that a company is going to cut down if I feel this is going to effect the quality of air I breathe? Shouldn't I have a say in an invention of yours if I feel it is not a benefit to society and vice versa? Say I feel that your personal rights have violate mine...shouldn't I have a say in that? Why shouldn't we have a say in each others lives if each of us always effect one another? Why should I let a corporation dictate what and how much I actually have a say in when everything they, you or I do effects me? "Do you really want to, BY LAW, work and live and breathe for ALL the ppl in the world rather than choose the company and the boss you want to work for?" No I don't. But I believe both systems force people to sometimes have to work for people they don't want to and at something they don't want to. Capitalism by availability of jobs and for personal financial needs and communism by dictation of the peoples wants. "You really think freedom means having your salary dictated by a gov't rather then negotiating it between you and your boss?? Do you really think you are being exploited when someone asks you to do an office job for a certain amount of money in exchange?" So do you get a raise based on the company that you work for profits each year? Do you get a raise when you want? I've ask this question a few times yet you have never responded....Do you think you are being paid what you are worth and do you think the majority of people feel they are paid what they are worth? If you said no, then how can it be fair if so many people feel they are not getting paid what they are worth? "That freedom is to not earn less than your neighbour but equally not be allowed to earn more, no matter what your effort is?" If you bettered society and you live in society then how are you not improving your standard of living? "You really think your individuality is ensured in a society where everybody has a claim on your time and your life? You really think that you give ppl FREEDOM when you say that they are not allowed to judge what to do with their earnings? Where in fact you deny them earnings all together?" So I'm here...and I'm beginning to think that you're definition of individuality is a material based thing. I don't think communism totally ensures freedom. In any large gathering of any herd, in any species, there will always be a NEED for some or all to do a few things that they don't want to....maybe you've heard of it by it's technical name...it's called a compromise and it is essential for the survival of societies. "And you know what? That little remark about me as a child? You were right!" Oh, oh...call the shrink again...Angel is having a flashback "My grandmother bought me some watercolours when I was a kid and I loved that beautiful box. I was super careful with the box and kept it really clean as it meant something to me. When I took it to kindergarten, the other kids wanted to share my colours but judging how they treated the "common property" paint boxes I did not want to share mine with them." Even though you were free to use those dreadful common watercolour boxes...maybe not but I bet you had lots of fun playing on the swingsets everyone's tax dollars chipped in for....or did your grandmother pack one of those in your lunch bag as well so you wouldn't have to slum on common swingsets Those beat up old watercolor boxes were probably the introduction to art for many artists, how is that not a thing of beauty. I guess the difference between you and I is that you're concentrating on how beautiful your watercolour box was and the fact that it was yours and I'm concentrating on how useful it could have been and how many artists it could have helped create."There was however one nasty little boy who hit me and pulled my hair and called me selfish and mean and forced me to share my colours with him cause he had none." Did ya call him a dirty little commie??? Or did ya just laugh, a sad little laugh?? "He destroyed the colours as he unlike me had no value for them." I'd say you both had no value for them. He destroyed it because you didn't want to share and you destroyed it by not sharing. A prime example into the cause of criminal actions....greed by both sides. He'd rather destroy the watercolours than not be able to use them and you would rather destroy the watercolours than have him use it. Sounds like two foolish children. "And you know what else?" You never painted ever again??? "Ever since that day I have observed that ppl do not treat "common property" the way they treat their own property. Ppl pay road taxes, so in a way it is their road but they spit their chewing gum out where ever they feel like it. Do you think they do that in their own garden? I doubt it." So you spit gum out all over the road? Do I? Is it more common to see people not littering or littering? You ever visit a friend whose house is a little dirty? I don't know about over there but here in Canada we don't chuck garbage all over the place in fact you will even sometimes see people clean up after themselves or the few that don't treat "common property" with respect. Perhaps in any society there are just some people who don't care and respect both other's and their own property. Why do you think that everyone would just start trashing everything if we all shared? Are there not little children with privately owned watercolour boxes that have messed it up all by themselves? Perhaps some people are slobs and some people aren't but I can't picture everyone not taking care of the house they live in or the home garden they work on just because of communism. It's not like if society was communism your neighbors could just walk into the house you live in any time they want or go to your garden and spit gum into it or pick tomatoes from it and say that one is theirs. "And another thing, your statement about the Russians being first in space is a very poor example." Yeah maybe it wasn't the best example but if the Russians would have followed my plan they still would have been the first in space. "And no, the US NEVER knew such hardships as the Russians did, not even during the depression." Of course not. Those cotton plantation owners worked the land themselves. The slaves were happy to be whipped and hung and raped and make their masters extremely wealthy....ohhh sorry, were you just talking about white USA....cause if you weren't I could continue into the sweat shop labor that was so prevelant once upon a time but now is more well hid from the public. Or the near slave wages and extremely dangerous conditions that the black, chinese, the Irish, and whoever else wasnt' white, worked in while building the railroads. I guess they just did it for the betterment of the States and not because there were no other way to make money.....and I guess the founders and idea men of this great railroad only paid them enough to remain hungry instead of dead because they were poor too and couldn't afford it. I guess forced integration of school systems occured in the 70's because the ethnic minorities didn't want a good education like the white folk but were forced into better schooling for their own good. I'm guessing that they didn't teach you in school about the slaughter of not only the peaceful Aboriginal men of North America but also of the killing of women and children. I guess you never heard the stories of how they were forced of their land in the name of capitalism. I'm guessing (well I've been guessing a lot of things) that you never heard of how some of the black American population were used in the 50's as unknowing human guniue pigs to test the effects of syphillus. I'm guessing you think it was fair that the people to poor to afford a college education were blessed with the privaledge of going to some foriegn land and die in order to protect the investments of the wealthy....You'd think the rich would be the first in line to protect the country that has put them at the top of the social food chain. I'm also guessing you really haven't SEEN North America. I guess you haven't recently visited some of the Indian reserves where after water tests the quality was deemed compatible to that of a Third World Nation. Or you haven't seen the rampant homeless problem. But ya you're right, the white and wealthy America has never seen such hardships. "So please leave these human rights violating countries out of your statements. Unless you want to tell me that they truly are the examples you aspire to?" Yes we should, my statements were almost as silly as quoting slave owners on their version of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Even though the application of these words make sense now....they didn't when they wrote it, nor did it have the same meaning to them as it does now to you. It kind of makes a fool look like a hero if I yell out "Everyone should be allowed to be happy!!!" as I beat some old woman with her own cane and two weeks later someone tells a friend about a man who had a great concept of "Everyone being allowed to be happy." "Do not shout: what right do fat cats have to their inherited money!? Rather tell me by what right you think YOU have a claim to their money? You say their ancestors were looters and therefore they should not be allowed to keep that money, as they did not earn it. And in the same breath you say that YOU have a claim on that money. How so? How did YOU earn it? Just by being alive and having less then them? Is that how money is earned in your opinion?" I didn't say I had a claim on it, I said we have a claim on it because it was wrongfully earned (something to do with slavery or land barons or stealing). Now why do you think they should be allowed to keep it? I guess the Germans who became wealthy from the "free" work of the Jews shouldn't have to pay up? I guess it's wrong of the Jewish nations to think they have a claim on money earned by their enslavement? Or I guess the black South Africans shouldn't feel resentment towards those really nice and wealthy Dutch Africans who segregated their country and raped the diamond mines? And I guess I shouldn't feel pissed that once upon a time a handful of people told everyone that only they own the land and anything they want has to be paid for first. I guess I shouldn't feel upset that on a planet I was born onto I have no legal right, other than the ones dictated to me, to walk across imaginary lines that seperate imaginary countries in order for the wealthy and powerful to play a giant game of monopoly. I guess I shouldn't be upset at the fact I have little to no say of what goes in the water I must drink or what goes in the land I must eat from or what goes in the air I must breathe. I guess I shouldn't be upset that in a capitalist society we are forced to make one person incredibly rich instead of all of us wealthy (were forced because we can't all own our own businesses can we? And if we can't do the things we want to do then we are FORCED to do an alternate in order to survive.), So how can this be freedom if you don't have a choice????? Well I know you're tired of this....probably haven't even taken the time to read this anyways so what does it matter? P.S. please take my friendly ribbings with a grain of salt. I'm only horsing around to try and hold onto the little bit of sanity I have left. JIM: "I'd say she handed you your hammer and sickle on a bed of maple leaves, my friend." Actually it's "our hammer and sickle", and the "people's maple leaves". Take care everyone, ....I just realized I could say just about anything about Angel and there will be no repercusions by her to suffer for she is through with this thread....or at least just with responding to anything I have to say.....tempting but I'm just crazy for that sweet gal of mine....or wait a second....sorry she just makes me crazy. Once again, take care and lets break some records in longevity with this thread. Trevor |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
