508 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Many thanks to Mangala for starting this topic... and keeping this fascinating disussion going, and to Mind, Lazarus Long, MichaelAnissimov, Kyle65uk, Saille Willow, and Calaban for the intelligent reply.

Feel free to continue the discussion... or start a related topic here in the Economics & Politics forum.



START OF COPY & PASTE FROM BJKLEIN.COM


Originally posted by Mangala: <-from bjklein.com


Capitalism is Horrible.
Since the beginning of time man has always felt the need to have more things, to be able to get stuff done for him that he doesn't feel like doing.

Man is Lazy.

Capitalism, in short, has contributed so much to slowing down societal progress that it would do well in my opinion for all Immortals and singulitarians to unite and declare capitalism an enemy of their cause.

Capitalism is a wreck, an unorganized hoarding semi-system that seeks to make people prize money instead of human happiness. By letting CEO's and heirs to familial wealth get better health care, better schooling, and all-together a better life in exchange for working hardly at all we continue to make ourselves feel inferior, depressed, and helpless.

Capitalism, as well as religion, has hindered progress so much in so many fields in society that it would do well to assume our hopes of becoming immortal are just as futile as a fish hoping to fly.

Some anti-capitalists would argue Capitalism simply works to keep a wealthy minority from living anything less than the good life. Those who study the capitalist phenomenon however know the truth. Capitalism doesn't just help rich people have things to make their life easier, it works for the pointless process of making people want more money. Even CEO's want better sound systems for their cars, they want to take trips into space and buy bigger houses than the mansions they have now. Rich people want to get richer just as poor people want to get richer. If everyone wants to get more money, who doesn't want more things to indulge themselves with?

So what am I? I am a socialist, and I am damn proud. I hate communists, I hate fascists, I hate fundamentalists and most of all I despise Capitalists.

But Why do you hate Communists Mangala? Aren't Communists and Socialists close cousins? Communists have always made Karl Marx look like an idiot. Communists all over the world have taken Marxist teachings and turned them into nothing but utopian semantics. Communists have always turned fascist in some way. Russia, Cuba and China all turned out terrible countries, only in its last few days of a Communist regime when China has so many capitalist sweatshops is it doing any good for its people. Communists treat their people like drones, and an authoritarian society trying to treat people like objects that they are not never works.

So what massive changes do I want? Listen:

1) The same wages for ALL WORKERS

2) Democratic, governmental control of all fields of business

3) Six weeks of Vacation guaranteed to every worker every year

4) About the same education and medical care for every worker

5) Six weeks of taking some menial job for every worker in any field


Number one just makes sense. How does being a CEO make you more eligible for a bigger TV screen or a heart operation that could save your life? Why should you get the better food, the better clothes or the better education for your children? Why should a poorer person only be able to purchase worse clothes, afford only public education, and live in a worse place? Most human beings are really, really just as simple (genetic or intelligence-wise) as everyone else; in a society that sees some people as being better than others, the whole system is obviously backward.

Number two makes sure the system doesn't mess up. The government we currently have tries to make sure that the most amount of people live the best kind of lives. Governments cannot really do this if companies keep messing things up by only thinking about their profit margins. Think about the amount of people that could be saved during an epidemic if the government just gave out the cures for a disease and paid the workers anyway instead of a company making the excuse it couldn't give cures to everyone because everybody doesn't have enough money. What about the hundreds of thousands of families in the South who are living in a one room shack and barely surviving, do they deserve less because the adults involved were never motivated by their poor school to attend college? Everybody is human, everybody gets the same stuff (*important*- not necessarily the same kind of stuff however)

Vacation is necessary for people. Working is not natural no matter what job your in. People need time during a working year to relax and continually reflect on what they are doing and if they want to continue. The US works too damn hard while countries like France and Britain have great worker lifestyles while getting a lot of days off during the year.

Health is not for sale! Does Martha Stewart have more of a right to stay alive than you do? Why should she get the little nanobots that fix her every misplaced guanine in her DNA while you work your ass off to get that heart surgery for your child? Rubbish.

We all know the truth, get the education, then you get the money, then you get the good life. Rich people have rich kids that go on to give campaign contributions to senators and presidents. In a socialist society no child would get to go to Harvard simply because he got squeezed in because another kid couldn't pay the price. Oh sure not every disadvantaged kid in America goes to a cheap public college but that's just because we aren't living in the 1920s where social Darwinism was considered a respectable field of study! Also, the US isn't totally capitalist anymore.

Number five simply is a framework for a more complex job substitution program. In a socialist system, most people get good education, and so they go on and do things they like instead of working in the factory only because companies think they need workers to perform cheap labor for the upper class. So, who's going to drive the cabs, pick up the trash, build the cars, or sell the fruit roll ups?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WE WILL!!

Since everybody's the same, everybody has to do the jobs no one wants to do. Six weeks a year you will have to pick a job that not a lot of people have signed up for because you are not better than anybody else. Plus its a little bit of variety, after working in the lab all year trying to find the cure for cancer you might find relaxation in building boxes or selling retail. Plus best of all, since no one wants to do these things, everyone will try to move closer to what everyone wants now - Robot Labor. Yes, I can see the congress right now closing down NASA and forming a whole division just to build cabs that can drive people, plumbing that fixes itself, totally automated planes and prisons. The truth is, no one really wants to do menial labor so why make humans do things they weren't meant to do? FREE THE DRONES.

Well, I'm going to end it there and hope the rebuttals come.

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

Also while you prefere to concentrate on some CEO's getting large, and often unfair amounts of money, for comparativly little work, what about hte other ones that do far more work than many of there employees, and also much middle managment, which is made up even more of people who have spend most of their lives working to get where they are, areyou going to simply say, 'sorry' everything you've ever done is worthless now, and your on the same wage as someone else who does hardly any work while you are working late each night. They'd all quite, and get an easier job, and while a manager can do rubbish desposal for a few weeks a year OK, what would happen if an assembly line worker was suddenly put in charge of an entire corporate devision, after all someone would have to take their place. it would be complete chaos.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

These sorts of ideas look fine on paper, but putting them into practice would be a complete nightmare.
And with robot labour, there would be no need to employ people, and there would be higher unemployment, something thats already happening today with machines doing work since they worked out cheaper than people due to workers wanting too many rights and striking, resulting in many people getting fired.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

Thank you for being just about the only one so far to reply to my subject.

Although it may seem at first these ideas are not fit to reform capitalism's horrible way of treating anyone who is not at the top, one must truly think about the policies of a socialist system UNDER THE TERMS OF A SOCIALIST SYSTEM.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
some people would have to do more work because it simply wouldnt be practical for everyone to do every job in the world at least once, and as all jobs don't require the same amount of effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why would everyone do every job at least once? I only said people who live in the socialist system would have to take time out of their work year to work as a trash man or a postal office worker. This does not mean someone who decided only to graduate from High School would be eligible to become the president of a company. By no means.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So those who took on the harder jobs would be unfairly treated if they recieved no benefits from doing more work, thus no one, or very few people would want to take these jobs. So there would be no co ordination and nothing would be done; so we'd all be dead before immorality was developed, after all who is it that is working on in now, why that would be Capitalist Companies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What are benefits? Benefits are rewards often given in monetary value, or in medical care. In a socialist system people would always receive the same amount of medical care and would always receive the same amount of money. People wouldn't want more money because they would understand that money isn't what the goal is in a socialist system. The goal is to enjoy the job you want to have, and to contribute to society by making life easier for people. People reach for the rich lifestyle because there is a rich lifestyle in the first place. By working harder a person knows that ve is doing something good for society. If a person were to work not as hard as they should be, they would be fired. They must have been fired because they did not enjoy their job enough to work hard enough. Thus, they would find a new job that they really liked to do, or they would find the same job under a different firm but try harder this time to get the work done. Everybody has a dream job, and in a socialist society everyone gets a dream job. In a capitalist society, a lot of people are dumbed down so they can't get their dream job.

And yes, companies are working on immortality, but that does not mean that they must be companies under a capitallist system. Think of how many new Einsteins are in the sweatshops! All the Elizer Yudowsky's ;-) pumping your gas! What about all the progress that these people could contribute to our world if they were just able to get a good education and a job fitted for their desires! Do you honestly think these people dreamed of growing up to be postal workers, or plumbers, or ticket takers?

- Mangala...

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And since everyone would be changing jobs all the time in order to share the menial task, people wouldnt get good at there jobs, and there would be even worse inefficiency! Imagion the extra administration to
co-ordinate all this sharing and swapping.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Aha! My point exactly! People are not meant to drive taxis to live. They are people who can have aspirations and dreams and hopes. So why make some people do the jobs no one was meant to do? What makes you better than an uneducated brick layer? By forcing people to face the lives some people live for a few weeks, they will try very hard to legislate the development of things that will do the work humans shouldn't do. Robots can be made to be meant to lay bricks, or deliver mail, or drive cars. They can be shaped to work at only their specific job without getting tired and without demanding "benefits."

And what about the problem of large scale swapping? Think of all the people on welfare that constantly move from job to job (and yes this a very real reality in the lives of poor people). This whole idea is not new, jobs can be allocated, new administration can be created to coordinate job needs. And after people are sick of having to take this six week job change, they will want change. And as i've said, that's good.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also while you prefere to concentrate on some CEO's getting large, and often unfair amounts of money, for comparativly little work, what about hte other ones that do far more work than many of there employees, and also much middle managment, which is made up even more of people who have spend most of their lives working to get where they are, are you going to simply say, 'sorry' everything you've ever done is worthless now, and your on the same wage as someone else who does hardly any work while you are working late each night. They'd all quite, and get an easier job, and while a manager can do rubbish desposal for a few weeks a year OK, what would happen if an assembly line worker was suddenly put in charge of an entire corporate devision, after all someone would have to take their place. it would be complete chaos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Did that person who decided to become a CEO, become CEO because he wanted to run a company, or because he wanted to run a buisness? Truth is, in a capitalist society, you cannot tell. If he just wanted to make money thats bad for society because he would become interested in the lifestyle his money gave him but not in his the work he is supposed to do. However in a socialist system that guy who does all the middle management work definetly did that work because he enjoys it. So now that we know this, why would he care if he was making the same amount of money as everyone else? In a socialist system he would care about the company and it's product, not the money.

About the middle managment people; you are talking about the transition of capitalist to socialist which would be hard if conservative America ever gave it a try. First you would have to find a salary that every working person in America would be happy living with, but would not be so much as to border on inflation, then you would have to redesign medicare and education, and a whole lot o' stuff about which I will explain later...

Anyway middle management salaries would not necessarily go down. And I'm talking about a freed society in which people have already grown up in, not in the transitional society in which some people would be annoyed by their new salaries, but many more would be happier. In a socialist system middle management would either become a menial job, or a job in which the people working in middle management enjoyed their job.

About replacement workers, people in high positions take vacations all the time. For 9 months a year (approximately) you would have your manager doing his job and hopefully having fun doing it. For the six weeks he was not working as a manager it would be completely ludicrous to hire someone who was not fit for the job. Not to worry though, six weeks a great time to train the assistant who wants to learn to be the manager. A friendly trade-off seeing as the assistant feels in no way that the manager is somehow better than him because he gets more money.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These sorts of ideas look fine on paper, but putting them into practice would be a complete nightmare.
And with robot labour, there would be no need to employ people, and there would be higher unemployment, something thats already happening today with machines doing work since they worked out cheaper than people due to workers wanting too many rights and striking, resulting in many people getting fired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh how the capitalist ideals are rooted deep in your psyche! Robotic labor DOES NOT WORK IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY. Someone whose work is replaced by a machine then goes on to another job later recognized as something replaceable. The very idea! This gives absolutely no respect to the human being who is working! Tell me, where does the salary go when a worker is replaced by a machine who only requires a few extra dollars for power consumption? It gets added to the salary of the fat cats in charge! Why should the money go to them? If a worker were to own the robot doing the work for him, shouldn't he get the same amount of money that he used to get? I mean, the job is still getting done right? It's just that something else is doing it. My point is by exchanging the worker with a robot, you establish an emphasis on the extra money being raked in, but never on the human being who you ousted. Where's the good in that? If that's the kind of value system our society wants to promote than I spit on our way of life! But if you have a society that puts a clear emphasis on helping the human being who is working by telling him that the job is disrespectful to human enjoyment of life and will be replaced by a robot made for the job, then society wins. Only by telling the marine biologist you can work on biology now instead of drive people around do you win. If you fire a man simply because you say he's not needed anymore you are promoting unhappiness. Not to mention the marine biologist can get another cool job, the taxi driver cannot.


A final point on values. If a commercial comes on TV and says "We want you to buy our product because we want to make your life easier" you and I both know that the company paying for this commercial is proboably lying. Capitalism tries to deny the fact that the value is capital, not people. If people were to grow up in Socialist land and find that a friend was not working as hard as ve should be, they would not get mad because they are both living with the same amount of money coming in(*important*-not necessarily the same lifestyle), they would be concerned because ve would know that the friend proboably does not want to work hard because they do not enjoy their job enough. And if someone were to think that they could just do whatever they felt like and be paid the same,they woudl be fired because they do help society.


"Man1: ...But the people in charge take the financial risks--

Man2: The risks are just another perk that comes with being at the top!"

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mind

Capitalism is the best system for the current state of human evolution. It squeezes out the most progress for the least amount of effort. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than all of socialism and communism and dictatorships combined thoughout all of civilization. If you take the long term view of progress and technological advancement throughout all of human history, everything moved quite slow until the industrial revolution. If technology was to continue on its exponential curve some new system had to take hold. And it did. Co-incident with capitalism becoming the main societal driving force came increased lifespan and more wealth for all of those that have imbraced it. Look around the world today, capitalist countries are "where it is at". Those that cling to disasterous dictatorships (middle east) theocacies, or communism (China, Cuba) live in squalor. If you stop capitalism then you will stop progress. People of the modern day are not ready for some altruistic socialist utopia. They are driven by desire for wealth, recognition, material things. Capitalism mines that desire. As far as robots doing all the menial jobs. We are still a decade away from nano-assemblers...so that is just a pipe dream right now. Dude, the day will come when we find a better mode of operation than capitalism...we are just not there yet.

Aside...I made 2,500 dollars last year...and I love capitalism. I am not jealous of CEO's that make big bucks. I would like to be there someday...and I don't want some tyrant telling me there is only certain amount of money or material wealth I can possess. The system you propose is totalitarian, plain and simple.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By BJKlein


Mangalla, you make a strong case and you've put much thought into the idea.. I respect that.. however, I feel there are some fundamental problems...

I'd have agree with Mind here... Capitalism, or more importantly "freedom" from big governmental forces, is the best system for humans...

As humans we have evolutionary baggage. We have so called nasty habits and so called altruistic impulses.. but really, at the root of it all is, as Dawkins say, our Selfish Gene.. our DNA code.

(Read: Moral Animal - Why We Are The Way We Are - The New Science Of Evolutionary Psychology {Robert Wright})

I think we'll transcend the problem of DNA when we finally upload and augment our minds.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Sophianic


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Admin:
As humans we have evolutionary baggage. We have so called nasty habits and so called altruistic impulses.. but really, at the root of it all is, as Dawkins say, our Selfish Gene.. our DNA code.

(Read: Moral Animal - Why We Are The Way We Are - The New Science Of Evolutionary Psychology {Robert Wright})

I think we'll transcend the problem of DNA when we finally upload and augment our minds.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


While The Moral Animal may be a fairly good theoretical introduction to evolutionary psychology, I would also recommend The Evolution of Desire by David Buss. In addition, for a more practical guide to "taming the animal within", I heartily recommend Mean Genes (see my post in Books and Media for more). This book provides a scientific basis for taking full control of your genetic legacy and offers a strong alternative to the Singularitarian idea that the only way to get past our "selfish" genes is to transcend them.

E.O. Wilson has this to say about Mean Genes:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mean Genes is brilliant — well-grounded evolutionary biology, clear-eyed realism, and advice that is both practical and moral. Delightfully readable."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On the subject of Socialism and Capitalism, I just want to say that I see no necessary conflict between seeking equality and justice for all on the one hand, and seeking profits and prosperity free of interference from the State on the other. Let's hear it for Capitalism with a Conscience, for Capitalism with Compassion through a Civil Society. Incidentally, I believe that a guide like Mean Genes makes a valuable contribution to this type of social system.

Sophianic

How beautiful it is to do nothing, and then rest afterward Spanish proverb

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By BJKlein

Thanks Sophianic.... I've read "Mean Geans"... It's been a a while back, so, I'll be sure to grab it again in my frequent trips to the library.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

Back to Mangala's comments the view of who is being treated unfairly and who isn't cant be judged by generalising that all uneducated people are being repressed in terms of intellectual expression, for every asset to society from them theres going to be somebody with a negative influence. You asked why a bricklayer should be given more rights than, for example a CEO, well there could be a very good reason for this, the bricklayer might have dropped out of school early - because he was lazy, and of cause he's going to say he was repressed, in the same way he'll agree with any other excuse given to him. While the CEO may have worked hard all through school, and university. As ever there are cases where things are unfair, Im just pointing out that this in fact is often the case. In addition, until the genes etc responsably for people being selfish are altered, the majority of people supporting this socialist idea would be people looking to do an easy, job at a much higher salary than usual, for most people there would become no point in even bothering to complete education beyond a basic level as they would be garenteed the same income whether they went for a difficult job, meaning either one requiring much brain power, or physical power. Since they could, somehow.. get their dream job. Also I think you would find that as a result of this, there would be a large number of jobs not able to be filled by robots, that no one wanted, after all if everyones treated equally, how do you decide which of the 50 million applicants get to be president. Going back to what you said about job swapping, yes lots of people on welfare do regually swap but the jobs they are swapping are often not skilled jobs requiring training etc.

Also if everybody did get their dream job immediately then for many there would be not much to aspire to, and whether its fair or not, a lot of people enjoy trying to improve themselves, quick gratification would, certainly once this system was established and hardships forgotten make almost everybody even more greedy, as people just arnt satisfied, which is often why they blame other people like CEO's for their problems, when sometimes (not always) its their own fault.

Finally about why the company gets the extra money as a result of a machine being used to replace a worker; The machine belongs to the company, not the worker, so it would be unfair to give the worker money for doing nothing. The company has probably created other jobs developing the robot. Like Mind said, in countries that practice similar socialist methods, they get abused even more, and the people are even worse off.
If it wasnt for Capitalism you wouldn't be able to be discussign this with me.

It would be better to remove the corrupt people in society today that are bringing the reputation of Capitilism down, and preventing it from doing the good it has so often done. That to destroy the entire infrastructure and start again.

If the whole of capitilism was as bad as you say, you wouldn't be able to be saying this about. As I wouldnt be ableto in one of the remaining communist states, its only the well off that are able to complain about the system that has allowed them to be in that positon. Thats relative wealth.


In the end whatever the system it'll lead to abuse, and it's going to be unfair, in some why to someone. Jobs shouldn't be seen as a right, its a two way partnership, afterall at the moment if a company fires someone simply because if it doesnt it'll go bankrupt it has to pay redundancy, which often means it has to fire even more people due to that loss. Yet a key employ can just quit at any time and they don't have to pay anything. Whenever the employees try to fight the company, in the end they lose out becasue if they win, often the company will go bankrupt, at least with most small, and medium sized ones and they'll be unemployed, and the more often this happens the more worthwhile it is to companies to find altenatives to most emplyees, and when they do if the employees arn't with them the emplyees arn't going to benefit from having their job done for them, since it'll be done instead of them, and they'll get nothing.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Sophianic


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kyle65uk:
Also if everybody did get their dream job immediately then for many there would be not much to aspire to, and whether its fair or not, a lot of people enjoy trying to improve themselves, quick gratification would, certainly once this system was established and hardships forgotten make almost everybody even more greedy, as people just arnt satisfied, which is often why they blame other people like CEO's for their problems, when sometimes (not always) its their own fault.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Capitalism at its best would have a support system in place to help anyone reach their full potential. The level of prosperity in a truly laissez-faire mode of Capitalism would allow this, even demand it. It would entail a method to evaluate a comprehensive range of abilities, recommend courses of action that fit an individual's psychological profile, and get them plugged into the programs of study or training of their choice. Depending on the social status of the individual, they would be financed by companies or non-profit entities with an interest in watching them succeed. People who hate Capitalism need some kind of assurance that this would take place. As present, there is no such assurance.

There's a common perception that a pure system of Capitalism (which has never been given a chance to exist) would degenerate into a dog-eat-dog kind of world; ultimately, no one would care about anyone but themselves. It's a perception that was fueled by the stories of hardship when Capitalism first started to take hold in America, and it's a perception that can be easily corrected by advanced modern educational and organizational systems and methods, in lieu of State-run institutions and programs.

The hard part is gradually replacing the existing State-sponsored safety net with a social network that cares about everyone, even when they don't (or can't) care about themselves. Private enterprise must be given a chance to work for this to happen -- starting in an area that really and truly matters from a political standpoint: education. I believe that it's entirely possible to create a world where no one envies a celebrity or a CEO, a world where regimentation is unheard of, and a world where righteous moralism is virtually non-existent. As far as I can see, what with the push for private education, that world is coming, and the sooner the better.

Sophianic

How beautiful it is to do nothing, and then rest afterward Spanish proverb

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyke65uk

Exactly, when run by the right people capitilism can be caring, unlike the popular opinion of it makes it out to be. Its just a matter of giving it time to work, and get the 'right' people influencing the running. And hopefully immortality will allow them to stay their since people who damage the companies through their actions will eventually lose control through their actions, while people who do good for society and the company from their position are often only lost through old age.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

Thanx guys for the comments. And thanx BjKlein for helping me with my text problem. I'm sorry I wrote alot earlier in the day but then I had to go to work. I cannot respond to everyone right now and seeing as I'm the only Socialist here I guess I'll have to eventually.

Unfortunately you all fail to see that capitalism is not some system that everyone came together to create because they thought it would introduce the best amount of progress or the most amount of happy people. Capitalism was not planned. Capitalism came about like we all developed eyes and ears. Capitalism is the current system that the United States runs on, but that does not mean thats the way it has to be. All of us grew up in a capitalist country and so our default reaction is to link democracy with capitalism and defend capitalism with the assertion that Socialism must be bad because close neighbors like Communist countries in the past have been horrible. Look, I do not defend Stalin in any way. I hate Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro because all they think about is promoting their hegemonic rule. People need to see that the reason we are not still living under the oppression of the Industrial Revolution is because we have made SOCIALIST REFORMS. Reforms meant to serve the happiness of the people. The Food and Drug Administration; The Health Department; Minimum Wage; Anti-Child Labor to name a few. Truly Capitalist models like early Industrial America put a sorry few in charge. They fabricated childish ideas to defend themselves like Social Darwinism and the American Dream of starting out as a business clerk and ending up like a Rockefeller. The most important thing a person needs to do while thinking about the ideas of a socialist, is to understand that a true socialist is not the enemy. Ve does not try to reinforce his minority in power by establishing the idea of "The throne of Karl Marx." If a socialist is a socialist is a socialist, he will only try to help the social structure, that is, the people. Democracy is number one on ver list.

Sophianic, BjKlein, Mind, I totally understand where you guys are coming from! When I was first introduced to Socialism I was disgusted that a friend of mine had even considered such a tried and fail system! But we must face facts, and one of those facts is that Capitalism is not the best system for humans, it simply is the system. Think of economic systems not as something higher than evolution, think of it just as a social construct that has evolved over time stemming from the first elements of friendly human interaction beyond just the familial. First there was the early Egyptian, Greek, and Roman mercantilist colonial economic structure in which workers worked to make the dictator happy (The Roman senators did do a little to help out the people, but the Romans were unique for their time). Then came the rise of Island nations like Japan and Britain who used Feudalist political, financial, as well as religious policies to create an overall increase in the range of trading with the colonies that had been taken over. The enlightenment combined with the late French Revolution brought on the sense of human possibility that gave scientists the ability to create spinning jenny's and steam engines. The one thing we notice about human social evolution up until the Industrial Revolution is a gradual change in priority and goal oriented state that results in a change from getting food to the king, to getting food to the people. My point is this is brought on because the people have always had the potential to bring about happiness for eachother since cave drawings. Contrary to cynical opinion, the overall fact that the state wants happiness will be powerful enough to bring happiness. Capitalism is just another example of having a minority in power. Everyone knows that they don't like poor people to be poor,(there are A LOT of poor people out there in this country) and that is why we are moving toward a technocracy where the AI will be able to provide for all.

But until then progress can be increased exponentially by letting the Einsteins be free to be Einsteins, by letting those at the bottom join the ranks of the educated, and dismantling the system that keeps the rich from making rich children in a disturbingly real cycle. Thats the beauty of intelligence, we can plan our systems, they do not just have to be WHAT WORKS.

(sigh) Now for the rebuttals...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism is the best system for the current state of human evolution. It squeezes out the most progress for the least amount of effort. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than all of socialism and communism and dictatorships combined thoughout all of civilization. If you take the long term view of progress and technological advancement throughout all of human history, everything moved quite slow until the industrial revolution. If technology was to continue on its exponential curve some new system had to take hold. And it did. Co-incident with capitalism becoming the main societal driving force came increased lifespan and more wealth for all of those that have imbraced it. Look around the world today, capitalist countries are "where it is at". Those that cling to disasterous dictatorships (middle east) theocacies, or communism (China, Cuba) live in squalor. If you stop capitalism then you will stop progress.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Incorrect, as I've said Capitalism is not the best, it simply is. It may squeeze out a little progress meant to help out human beings but thanks to social reforms the progress is not simply for the advancement of a company.

Comminism. as said it is true that nations claiming to be Communist or Socialist have failed horribly because they weren't really Communist states at all, just poor fascist states. It's really sad how hundreds of millions in China and Cuba are oppressed by their rulers who lie constantly about how much they want to help the people. But in a dictatorship you an't do much to help, you just have to wait for them to die ;-).

Think of the progress that a Socialist country could create! No, look away from your computer screen right now and really think about all those people who work menial jobs in this country who you meet everyday. All those people who would really be happier and better put to use for society by working on something that will help people rather than just pump their gas or bring them their mail. No, no, no, no, stop capitalism and you will see a system full of progress you never thought possible. We would reach the singularity exponentially faster if we had all those leaders, social theorists, engineers, biologists, and electronics designersworking without strict monetary limits from profit driven companies. The government control of companies alone would increase the amount of money allocated to those working on AIDS vaccines and Cancer cures because the democratic government would put people in charge of socialist companies who wanted to help people, not make more money.

As for Capitlalist countries being "where it's at" I find this half-truth quite compelling. The USA is "where it's at" because it is a socialist-capitalist hybrid. It may be more capitalist than socialist but that is changing. The Soviet Union nor China nor Cuba nor Chile nor North Korea were never Communist, they were all just fascist, they never served the interests of the people, they served the interest of a person, and that person was the leader. Capitalist countries seem to be where its at only because they have a few countries (USA, EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada, India, and Russia) that have democracies. So what have we proven? Democracy good; Fascism bad; but by no means does that have anything to do with a country being Capitalist or Socialist. By the way Mind did you read my opening argument? I distinctly said Communist countries and dictatorships are horrible. Countries in the Middle East are dictatorships but what does that have to do with a Socialist Democracy?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not jealous of CEO's that make big bucks. I would like to be there someday...and I don't want some tyrant telling me there is only certain amount of money or material wealth I can possess. The system you propose is totalitarian, plain and simple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are not jealous however you would like to be one? Well you pay your taxes don't you? What if I were to say I don't want some tyrant telling me I have to pay ver to live in the US? I can live wherever I want dammit! Don't tell me I have to pay you! Who do you think you are, the US government...oh wait...

Obviously the system is not toalitarian, its just a different way of going about things. Capitalism just happened, I want our people to plan something instead of just accept the system around us which needs poor people in order for it too work.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism, or more importantly "freedom" from big governmental forces, is the best system for humans...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Big Governmental forces? You didn't read my argument either? Dictatorships don't work! And linking democracy and Capitalism is another pitfall. Freedom is number one on the list of a socialist who wants to help people.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of Socialism and Capitalism, I just want to say that I see no necessary conflict between seeking equality and justice for all on the one hand, and seeking profits and prosperity free of interference from the State on the other. Let's hear it for Capitalism with a Conscience, for Capitalism with Compassion through a Civil Society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's a good start! Socialism and Capitalism don't have to be enemies. Competition between Socialist companies and Capitalist companies is good in both respects. However...just one teensy tiny little problem with your view on the subject Sophainic. When your seeking profits you stifle equality and justice. That's my problem with Capitalism. Prove me wrong and I might turn it around. When you want to make more money, you will lower wages to just about union approval just to make sure theres no strike. When people make just enough to live on, they can't buy what they want, and so theres the problem. People treat others badly in Capitalism midway through the race for Capital. Under a Socialist system competition is fostered under the pretense that the race is not for capital, its for something that would make people happier.

And yes Capitalist-Socialist Hybrids are doing OK while thriving on sweatshops in other countries,(Capitalism with a conscience) but just because you've made more people happier than strict Capitalism does not mean you should stop there. Value people, not material.

By the way I do think humans have enough good in them to help their fellow man without becoming aggressive.

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

Kyle, thought you'd left, you're back, good.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asked why a bricklayer should be given more rights than, for example a CEO, well there could be a very good reason for this, the bricklayer might have dropped out of school early - because he was lazy, and of cause he's going to say he was repressed, in the same way he'll agree with any other excuse given to him. While the CEO may have worked hard all through school, and university. As ever there are cases where things are unfair, Im just pointing out that this in fact is often the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There's a trend in this country that is very sad. This trend is that of a Rich family more often than not ending up with rich children, to a suprislingly high degree, I think 88%. Rich people send there kids to private schools that promote good education and going to college while poor people often see no reason to go to college because societal motivation is almost non-existant. Yes the CEO worked hard in high school and college, ve sees no reason not to. Ve knows that going to college makes him more appealing to any field of work and that continuing in graduate school makes him look even better. The poor person doesn't know that or if he does, he wasn't motivated by his parents and friends to go to college, to him there's no reason at all. Knowledge is power and the people on the bottom usually end up without any power. I should know about this effect, I go to one of the greatest public schools in America in Westchester, NY. Scarsdale High School is known for it's closely knit Jewish ideals of education and family pressure. People I meet from other towns don't give college much credit at all. Through work(lifeguarding) I've met many kids from less motivated towns and encouraged them to try to get into college and think about the ramifications of getting a good education, but they don't see it as really important because no one really tells them as often as they would at a better off school.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
after all if everyones treated equally, how do you decide which of the 50 million applicants get to be president. Going back to what you said about job swapping, yes lots of people on welfare do regually swap but the jobs they are swapping are often not skilled jobs requiring training etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm sorry but WHAT??? In what system ever do you see being president as a job offer? We're talking about a democracy here, there's no being hired by anyone but the people in elections. Yes lots of people get job swapping for jobs that require hardly any work and that is precisely what will happen in a Socialist system. People with likable jobs will be replaced by underlings and will work unlikable jobs that require little training for only a month and a half.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it wasnt for Capitalism you wouldn't be able to be discussign this with me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wrong, Socialism is in no way connected to Stalinism.


I just want to say I'm happy I got so many replies. I also love the faces I can put on the posts.

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

Not sure what time it is there in the US, but its 3AM here so, until I have a chance to reply properly, Id just like to clarify that I (think) I was thinking about the technology being available to communicate, and that it is through companies that the internet exists, I think I forgot off the beginning of that paragraph there.
The second thing, I was just using president as a (rather bad) example of how it would be very difficult to give everyone their dream job, since many wouldn't be qualified, or motivated to get qualified, and therefore just go from job to job doing it badly each time.
The problem is human nature, which means, as I said, almost all systems get abused, just some more than others. But with the right people in charge capitilism can work, in a caring way. After all I don't like it when CEO's who have virtually destroyed a successful business get huge checks when they're fired, any more than you do. Its a matter of getting the right people.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as robots doing all the menial jobs. We are still a decade away from nano-assemblers...so that is just a pipe dream right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mind many robots and even machines can complete menial jobs without having to delve into nanotechnological techniques. I do believe automated taxis can be built without having to make use of any nanotechnology. Plus why does a Socialist system have to pop up right now? By no means, a decade or several decades from now can be waited out until a Socialist system is tried. Plus keep in mind no country has ever implemented something exactly like this(although some countries have come close: Brtiain, France, Sweden; One Swedish girl told me taxes took out 80% of her dad's salary.) so this stays in the theoretical for now.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking about the technology being available to communicate, and that it is through companies that the internet exists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kyle you continue to make the error of linking the United States with Capitalist endeavors. If it wasn't for the US government fostering the growth of the internet, we'd proboably not be having this conversation either. The democratic government is one of the few societal constructs that actually tries to help people instead of trying to increase profits. But even that is beside the point; under a socialist system the internet would proboably have surfaced years ago what with the increased amount of scientists needing a place to compare data from experiments. Just because a money driven country can squeeze through a few good websites like these which are not driven by money does not mean that a Socialist US couldn't create something ten times better.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it would be very difficult to give everyone their dream job, since many wouldn't be qualified, or motivated to get qualified, and therefore [they would]just go from job to job doing it badly each time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...but you base this inability to give people jobs they want on what? And why do you not want to give people jobs they want? What do you value if you want to make a lot of people take jobs out of necessity instead of out of what they want?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But with the right people in charge capitilism can work, in a caring way. After all I don't like it when CEO's who have virtually destroyed a successful business get huge checks when they're fired, any more than you do. Its a matter of getting the right people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well as with anything getting the right people in charge of it is important. And that one instance of CEO's getting big checks for destroying a company is based on the laws surrounding CEO's and companies. Even a hybrid like the US could stop that from happening, but its a question of values, and the US currently values making sure CEO's get a lot of money and have their lives be better than everyone elses. And if you blame that on the CEO working harder than everyone else think about a comparison with a local trash man. Say a trash man were to work just as hard his entire life and dedicate himself to making sure any trash near your house was taken away. Doesn't he receive more money because he is working so hard? No, because its just an illusion, people are not paid for how hard they work, they are paid for what rank they recieve as they step on other people to get it.

Let me also say something about the REAL big case I have against this country and Capitalism, and that is, LAWYERS. Lawyers make this country a disgrace, they totally make no sense when it comes to human equality. When you pay for a better lawyer because you have the money and your opponent does not, you are effectively stating you are more just. A rich person has the ability to make his case better than a poor person and THAT disgusts me. How can you say that to another person? How can you say that you are proboably the person who is telling the most amount of truth because you have more money? But Mangala, even the people who are at the bottom can get lawyers appointed for them, whats the problem? The problem is my friend that most of the lawyers appointed are trainees or bad lawyers who are trying to get any case they can. When you can pay for righteousness, you effectively bribe lady liberty.

This is also not to say we shoudl get rid of lawyers, just the system of buying superior ones at higher prices and inferior ones at lower prices.

Anyway, I hope that whole Singularity happens, so I won't have to care about injustice anymore, the AI can just make sure everyone's taken care of, but until then, I have to try to save the people whose lives have been wasted desperately trying to grab a little more cash...

"Most people hate their jobs Peter"
- Office Space

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

Thing is while it looks unfair saying this person or this person isnt going to get rewarded if they work hard, but you've got to honestly think how many people actually do, or would work harder if this system was implemented. As you said, man is lazy, and so in a system where you get a relativly high rate of pay, since its equal for everyone, the majority of people arnt going to think of extra work and risk as a perk, but rather take advantage of it to get a high pay for a EASY job, and im NOT talking about menial jobs, such as a trash man, but more a cushy job.

And where did I say I didnt want to give people jobs they wanted? I said there would be too many people wanting the same jobs, and you simply couldn't give them all that job, because there would be nobody to do the other ones that people didnt want to do impractical to simply get people to take it in turns to take.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

On the lawyer point, I have to say that I agree with you, not only do they prevent true justice taking place, but they spend much of their time trying to make work for themselves by encouraging people to take action the off chance they might win, and get a huge amount of money from someone else who probably wasnt even to blame. Eg. Accident claim companies, the advertise all the time in the UK, resulting in many people making up claims, to try and get money for free from someone else. With the lawyers smiling all the way to the bank, having got a large percentage despite the fact it wasn't even them who suffered, if anyone suffered at all.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mind

I agree, Lawyers have gotten out of control. If there is one set of people whose sole motive is $$$$$$$ and nothing else, absolutely nothing else, it is lawyers. They do not even discipline themselves anymore nowadays. As a group they don't even pretend to help society. I feel a first step to turning the tide against the cancer that is lawyers is to adopt a "loser pays" law. This means the party that loses the court case has to pay all court costs including the court costs of the winning side. This does not interefere with the lawyers "one track goal" of making money (even big boat loads of money) but it would prevent a small percentage of frivilous lawsuits. I think it would be a good first step. It has been proposed in Congress but failed the first time around.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Sophianic


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MangalaIII:
That's a good start! Socialism and Capitalism don't have to be enemies. Competition between Socialist companies and Capitalist companies is good in both respects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually, Socialism and Capitalism are not compatible as social systems. The former strangles the latter. Companies under Socialism would not stand a chance of competing with companies under Capitalism.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However...just one teensy tiny little problem with your view on the subject, Sophianic. When your seeking profits you stifle equality and justice. That's my problem with Capitalism. Prove me wrong and I might turn it around.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is an old argument, but it doesn't hold up. When I seek a profit through my capital, I solicit the labor of others with a view towards a fair exchange (a wage in return for competent help), based on a free market. If a competitor offers a higher wage, I can either match it or go in search of cheaper labor. If I fail to find cheaper labor, I'm out of luck. I will have to raise that wage. You have to realize that I'm talking about a free market, not a market that is controlled and regulated by a State with vested interests. The market must be left alone to work its magic.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you want to make more money, you will lower wages to just about union approval just to make sure theres no strike.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would set wages in accordance with a free market. In a free market, union approval would not be a consideration, because in my business there would be no union.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When people make just enough to live on, they can't buy what they want, and so theres the problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When a relatively small percentage of people in a prosperous economy make just enough to live on, they have many choices: they can save their money, reduce their expenses, improve their skills. They're not helpless.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People treat others badly in Capitalism midway through the race for Capital. Under a Socialist system competition is fostered under the pretense that the race is not for capital, its for something that would make people happier.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is more perception than reality. No one treats anyone badly in the race for Capital. People have choices. Under Socialism, there would be little or no incentive to compete for dollars and 'sense'. Happiness is not anything that anyone can measure. How many units of happiness would it take for me to persuade someone that they work for me and not someone else?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes Capitalist-Socialist Hybrids are doing OK while thriving on sweatshops in other countries,(Capitalism with a conscience) but just because you've made more people happier than strict Capitalism does not mean you should stop there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Believe it or not, if you were to remove the Socialist component from the hybrid, and give Capitalism free reign in all countries, sweatshops would disappear off the face of the earth. Why? Because the owners would be compelled to clean up their act in the face of unregulated competition.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Value people, not material.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is a false dichotomy. I can value both people and material, and still turn a profit in a free market.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way I do think humans have enough good in them to help their fellow man without becoming aggressive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But not if they're coerced into accepting someone else's idea of a perfect society. We all enjoy the inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Notice I didn't say the right to happiness. I said the right to pursue happiness. Socialists have no business dictating how others should live their lives, either in the name of "a higher good" or in the name of correcting perceived evils. The free market will look after the former and an objective system of law will take care of the latter. Let's hear it for laissez-faire Capitalism on a global scale. Let's get rid of the dictatorships and the social democracies and replace them with free enterprise, and then watch levels of prosperity skyrocket all around the world. We'd all enjoy the prospect of immortality in no time at all ...

Sophianic

How beautiful it is to do nothing, and then rest afterward Spanish proverb

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

Yes, the one of the only reason why capitilism has problems is due to it being partially socialist, and it thus ends up with the worst of both worlds.

Also about governments, you said that they are tryign to heldp people, but are hindered by capitilism. But its exactly the other way round, companies dont pass laws to interfere with government, they dont get special voting rights, even though they have far more to lose from a bad government than a poor person (Im not saying we should have special voting rights to the right, Im just pointing out how it would be if the power was reversed) Then it could be unfair. The government interes to gain popular support, they do not whats 'right' and 'fair' instead they do things that keep them in power, and keep them getting their saleries. This is often not whats best, but what they feel it would be easiest to con the majority of people into voting for them. They arnt there to help us, they're there to help themselves by telling us that they're helping us by doing things that make it easy to make them look good.



As you said Mangala this isn't going to be tried for decades, and since Immortality or at least a good form of Longevity is likely to occur in the coming decades, there seems little point to unite against Capitilism in order to achieve Immortality, since it'll already be developed, to some degree, by which time we'll have more time, to take our time

Also to clariffy, are you saying the 80% tax in Sweden is good?

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

Ok, lots of stuff here, straight into the thick of it...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you said, man is lazy, and so in a system where you get a relativly high rate of pay, since its equal for everyone, the majority of people arnt going to think of extra work and risk as a perk, but rather take advantage of it to get a high pay for a EASY job, and im NOT talking about menial jobs, such as a trash man, but more a cushy job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maybe I should clarify, Man is lazy until he's told to get off his ass and help people. The social science of Capitalism evolved to make an excuse for the rich to take from the poor. Luckily the government has stepped in in the past to make sure rich people don't go too far in their quest for more wealth. Socialist reforms have made life better for people.

On the subject of taking a cushy job; people will take the job that they want to do. If they just take a "cushy job" and don't complete the work with the vivacity of a strictly capitalist worker, they are fired, if they do complete the work but very lazily, why did they pick that job? Don't educated people know that they can do something with their lives. The only reason why people take pointless jobs just for the money is because they can't take a job that makes any difference. In a Socialist system all people will be educated as fairly as possible and will be enticed by government funded programs that want workers to work for a cause that will help society exponentially. Study the trends and you will know the truth: rich and poor aren't separated by money, they are separated by the knowledge needed to get where they want to be.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And where did I say I didnt want to give people jobs they wanted? I said there would be too many people wanting the same jobs, and you simply couldn't give them all that job, because there would be nobody to do the other ones that people didnt want to do impractical to simply get people to take it in turns to take.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are right you did not say you wanted to stop people from getting the jobs they wanted. Nor did I believe you actually wanted to do such a thing(I was just adding a little bit of sarcasm in there to respond more adamantly with your point; I was succesful I might add). However you just about implied it here:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it would be very difficult to give everyone their dream job, since many wouldn't be qualified, or motivated to get qualified, and therefore [they would]just go from job to job doing it badly each time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you state that it is difficult to give everyone their dream job, then you state that you do reccommend trying to do it in the first place. More people are going to college all the time due to government funded scholarships and therefore more people will recieve their dream job more often. Once again socialism comes along to help people in the face of money driven education.

You have to follow my logic this time Kyle please! If everyone is educated at higher levels, people will be motivated because as we see in this country people who are educated well are almost always motivated to get the qualifications you are questioning. Plain and Simple: That is why fair education is needed. When everybody's educated, the question of qualification is nulled.

Also because of the low amount of training needed to serve ice cream cones, many people will be able to do menial jobs with as much efficiency as a poor person under capitalism.


Now for Sophianic, the first person to quote me, I've been waiting for that...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Socialism and Capitalism are not compatible as social systems. The former strangles the latter. Companies under Socialism would not stand a chance of competing with companies under Capitalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In what way ever??? Have you ever seen a company that is government controlled and is under the jurisdiction of a Social Democracy. How do you know a company fueled by the need to get people the best possible product won't sell out profit driven companies 2 to 1? I say, stop comparing the ideals I've presented to Stalinist Russia.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I seek a profit through my capital, I solicit the labor of others with a view towards a fair exchange (a wage in return for competent help), based on a free market. If a competitor offers a higher wage, I can either match it or go in search of cheaper labor. If I fail to find cheaper labor, I'm out of luck. I will have to raise that wage. You have to realize that I'm talking about a free market, not a market that is controlled and regulated by a State with vested interests. The market must be left alone to work its magic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First of all I've seen the market work its magic, and I'll tell you right now, it hasn't been pretty. Capitalism in it of itself was a great sounding system. However Adam Smith was describing a system that doesn't exist. When companies do go around looking for cheap labor they will in fact find the cheapest labor. Isn't that amazing! Capitalism works! Everyone's happy!

...Or not. The point is that it stops there. The labor demanding higher prices for their work has to dumb down its labor cost to compete with their fellow worker. More often than not the comapny beats the laborer union by finding sellouts(Oh yeah, unions, another happiness driven social construct trying to stop capitalism's "only money matters" assertion). So companies that have to raise their prices to deal with labor that thinks it worth more do help people have better lives, but more often than not the opposite happens, and so the poor stay on minimum wage. That's why we have sweatshops. Companies went to find the cheapest labor around and they found it easily in the poorest countries. But what happens when the poorest countries in the world start establishing socialist reforms like no child labor? There will be no one to turn to and so companies will have to pay more. So who doens't want this to happen? Big Business of course, and so they will hold onto their sweatshops like a baby to it's mothers breast until hopefully the governments are powerful enough to institute the reforms needed to stop tyranical money driven cycles of...bad(ran out of words ;-D).

So is that the magic you're talking about? The magic of whisking away your companies to distant lands to oppress the people who have no help from their governments like China, Taiwan and India? If so, sounds like black magic to me.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would set wages in accordance with a free market. In a free market, union approval would not be a consideration, because in my business there would be no union.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What?? You don't want unions? You want people to work at whatever the companies want them to work at? Well that should be good, a whole chain of sweatshops in the US sound like a great idea ;-).

Please clarify your view on unions before I try to attack your point from the view that you don't think unions are helpful to society.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is more perception than reality. No one treats anyone badly in the race for Capital. People have choices. Under Socialism, there would be little or no incentive to compete for dollars and 'sense'. Happiness is not anything that anyone can measure. How many units of happiness would it take for me to persuade someone that they work for me and not someone else?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No one treats anyone badly in the race for capital??? Three words! Enron, Worldcom, and Anderson! ...Maybe thats four words...But you get my point! How about Jimmy Joe in Texas who was laid off because the profit wasn't enough for the board of directors? Or Mary Sue in Tennessee who recommended to her company to forgo air bags in return for the low selling price of the car being designed? What about little Billy who started smoking today because the cigarette companies need to make cigarettes look cool to kids to make sure the cycle of addiction continues at high prices? Don't tell me that! Don't tell me that for an instant! Everyone is somehow affected everyday by the quest to get money but not help people!

(sigh) OK, if that was a conversation I'd of been yelling. But luckily this can be a civil conversation :-).

On the subject of the largely mocked idea of happiness selling in quarts and gallons...

People who grow up in a fully Socialist society know that they're not working just to make money. They know no one is better than anyone else and so they shouldn't recieve any more luxuries than anybody else. So they work to enjoy themselves, and in doing so acheive two things: Working efficiently because they want their job to acheive its goal(All companies would be forced to make a product that helped people in some way) (also because they don't want to get fired) and work in competition because all people really want to achieve their jobs goal first. Thus good products are made in good time because previously poor and rich people work together to do things that will make their own lives easier(selling low quality mattresses by phone and not enjoying it helps no one).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a relatively small percentage of people in a prosperous economy make just enough to live on, they have many choices: they can save their money, reduce their expenses, improve their skills. They're not helpless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Exactly! Why doesn't poor Joe just take an online college course and get a college degree? Because being poor very often includes a limit on the education given to you. Sure they could get degrees but capitalism needs them to stay on the bottom to work at K-mart because no one else wants to. Joe isn't stupid, most humans have just about the same brain capacity and intelligence capability. All that matter is the family you come into and which life they give you, and sorry to say, often poor families have poor children and rich families have rich children.

By the way, a person just making just enough to live on can't cut expenses or by definition he will die. He can't save any money or he will die also. The only way he can try to get better is to improve his skills, but as I've already said, he's not going to do that because he sees no reason to.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not, if you were to remove the Socialist component from the hybrid, and give Capitalism free reign in all countries, sweatshops would disappear off the face of the earth. Why? Because the owners would be compelled to clean up their act in the face of unregulated competition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Basically you're saying if you took away government enforced socialist reforms, companies would make socialist reforms. I'm not sure, I mean, would people want the lowest priced product from sweatshops or would they actually care about the little kid who made them? Oh wait we have a perfect example of the question posed: Today's Policies on Sweatshops. No one really thinks about the sweatshop made clothes we wear everyday, no one really cares about the long hours people work to recieve pennies a day. The point is, there is no socialist component in other countries. Our hybrid has not made any Socialist reforms on sweatshops and so the idea that companies would clean up their act because the customers care about the Chinese children is immediately thrown out because it has already been proven wrong in reality. People buy t-shirts at low prices and don't care who makes them.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can value both people and material, and still turn a profit in a free market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No you can't, you just said your final goal is to turn a profit, so even though may help someone out occasionally, at the end of the day you value money.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But not if they're coerced into accepting someone else's idea of a perfect society. We all enjoy the inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Notice I didn't say the right to happiness. I said the right to pursue happiness. Socialists have no business dictating how others should live their lives, either in the name of "a higher good" or in the name of correcting perceived evils. The free market will look after the former and an objective system of law will take care of the latter. Let's hear it for laissez-faire Capitalism on a global scale. Let's get rid of the dictatorships and the social democracies and replace them with free enterprise, and then watch levels of prosperity skyrocket all around the world. We'd all enjoy the prospect of immortality in no time at all ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never said Socialist societies are Utopias, just better then the alternative. Also, do you really believe no one has ever told you to do something in the name of a higher good? What about paying taxes? Or giving a little money to charities? People do good things for society because they know it will make them happier as well in the end. Also we once had laissez faire in America and look where it got us, social reforms that made us a hybrid. So sure, pay people pennies a day, what do i care? I should just keep treating the sweatshop workers like drones...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the one of the only reason why capitilism has problems is due to it being partially socialist, and it thus ends up with the worst of both worlds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok so you're saying to me you want no socialist reforms and for us to turn back the clock 90 years? I don't think so, if it wasn't for socialist reforms we'd all be punching the clocks tending to robots today. But that could never happen because people want to help eachother enough so they will make people based changes instead of money based changes.


About government, well the government has made some people based changes since laissez-faire so I do think theyre more than just people wanting popularity. But several changes to the government would be needed as well but I will not interest u with them now as I don't think this thread involves this.

Also yes I think taxing the rich is a good first step in Sweden.

And about immortality. We could still be living to only 100 by 2200, how do you know? I have to at least try to change this horrible system and increase progress so we don't have to worry about immortality at 2200.

Think of the Stephen Hawkings pumping your gas!


- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By BJKlein

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I should clarify, Man is lazy until he's told to get off his ass and help people. The social science of Capitalism evolved to make an excuse for the rich to take from the poor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


heh, I don't think it's some sort of conspiricy... that the rich want to take from the poor... If the rich have any brains at all they want the poor to become wealthy so they'll have plenty of $ to buy products. Free capital systems create positive feedback loops.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By MichaelAnissimov

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This book provides a scientific basis for taking full control of your genetic legacy and offers a strong alternative to the Singularitarian idea that the only way to get past our "selfish" genes is to transcend them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What?

How can we take full control without actually taking full control? The human mind is introspectionally opaque and only self-modifiable within the most stringent of evolutionarily imposed rules; how are you going to be free without jumping out of the system?

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Sophianic

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MichaelAnissimov:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This book provides a scientific basis for taking full control of your genetic legacy and offers a strong alternative to the Singularitarian idea that the only way to get past our "selfish" genes is to transcend them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What?

How can we take full control without actually taking full control? The human mind is introspectionally opaque and only self-modifiable within the most stringent of evolutionarily imposed rules; how are you going to be free without jumping out of the system?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Michael, I've started a new thread in Singularity is Near to respond to your questions. See: Genetic Happiness.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MangalaIII:
No one treats anyone badly in the race for capital??? Three words! Enron, Worldcom, and Anderson!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was because the market works so well that these companies were brought down. Cooking the books is not a race for capital, nor is it a consequence of a race for capital. It was the result of fear and dishonesty. It was the result of a serious moral breach. This breach is not a consequence of capitalism, but of a deadly bedfellow relationship between the State and the Market. A complete separation between State and Economy is necessary to discourage other such breaches.

In all of your arguments for "the little guy", you make the assumption that it's acceptable to take from those according to ability to give to those according to need. This is unacceptable. It's shameful exploitation, a violation of the producer's right to life and its derivatives: liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. By giving producers a chance to produce free of interference and coercion, the market will adjust to encourage social reforms and structures to accomodate "the little guy."

As BJ suggests in a previous post, it's in the best interests of producers and citizens to respond to need and support those who are less well off so that they can contribute to a healthy economy. If a populace is morally healthy to begin with (Socialism can never enforce this because morality comes before politics), then a civil society will rise in a Capitalist system to take care of "the little guy." Incidentally, the conflicts between Socialists and Capitalists are endless because both are operating from different paradigms.

Sophianic

How beautiful it is to do nothing, and then rest afterward Spanish proverb

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

I am so glad you came to my forum Michael Anissimov, even though you didn't really comment on your position, I've read your other posts and I think your ideas are great! BjKlein thanks for coming back as well!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
heh, I don't think it's some sort of conspiricy... that the rich want to take from the poor... If the rich have any brains at all they want the poor to become wealthy so they'll have plenty of $ to buy products. Free capital systems create positive feedback loops.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well think about it Mr. Klein, the rich are a minority with similar goals. Maybe they do not all have secret meetings and discuss ways to bring down the poor even more, but the fact is the rich are better educated in this country, and so they can send their kids off to better schools, and refuse to give money to poorer schools. Thats actually one of the key things to being rich, being cheap at the same time. So the poor kids never get motivated to attend universitys and graduate school, and they are left back in society. So can the rich give money to poor schools? Yes, but that wouldn't do much seeing as the rich aren't all Bill Gates rich and so their little contributions wouldn't do much. But what can the rich do to stop this bad cycle? They can stop giving campaign contibutions to politicians who share their childish beliefs that giving government money to poor schools is a bad thing!

So that is today's poor rich relationship, but the relationship I was referring to:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I should clarify, Man is lazy until he's told to get off his ass and help people. The social science of Capitalism evolved to make an excuse for the rich to take from the poor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Were in the days of laissez faire when the minority was alot smaller and yes-it could be assumed that the rich were actually working together to make sure social darwinism worked out and the poor stayed in the sweatshops.

Now as for the poor people needing money to buy rich designed products. One person called it "The Trickle-up theory." You are right, people should raise minimum wage to help out everyone, but the fear is is that rich people will fire the poor in order to keep profits up and stop the poor from getting salaries which would prevent high profits. This is of course a debate that needs to be set aside for another thread. My position on this is not fully concrete yet. But from a Socialist standpoint, I push the increase of minimum wage fully. The point is the rich do not do what you're saying Mr. Klein, and that is a large part because of the (capitalist problem only) minimum wage debate.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was because the market works so well that these companies were brought down. Cooking the books is not a race for capital, nor is it a consequence of a race for capital. It was the result of fear and dishonesty. It was the result of a serious moral breach. This breach is not a consequence of capitalism, but of a deadly bedfellow relationship between the State and the Market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well obviously the capitalist market isn't good if a market that does well fosters "book cooking." But anyway the reason why these people at the top cooked the books is because they were after two things, high profits and stock options. This moral breach you speak of was propelled by the need for more money was it not? The people on the top didn't care at all about the people at the bottom and so they practiced this moral breach only to get more money. Another example of the value being money rather than caring about the people working for the people at the top. And yes, in a socialist system, people would care more about the people who are working on the space elevator more than the people who are just trying to make people buy computers they could of gotten for cheaper online(sorry Rob, bad analogy, I know).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A complete separation between State and Economy is necessary to discourage other such breaches.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A complete separation between State and Economy would re-institute child labor and destroy health regulations just like countries that have a complete separation. Once and for all, which do you want, sweatshops or employee rights Sophianic?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all of your arguments for "the little guy", you make the assumption that it's acceptable to take from those according to ability to give to those according to need. This is unacceptable. It's shameful exploitation, a violation of the producer's right to life and its derivatives: liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. By giving producers a chance to produce free of interference and coercion, the market will adjust to encourage social reforms and structures to accomodate "the little guy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The producer? Explain.

What if everyone were given an equal chance to develop ability? Wouldn't that be great if everyone were capable of getting a good education. Then we'll see who's supposedly smarter and better equipped for a job...

OK!!! Sophianic we have our first contradiction that I was trying to sort out of your argument. You say on the one hand Socialist-Capitalist hybrids are bad. On the other hand you say laissez faire Capitalism would bring on the socialist reforms. So whats the problem here? In the end you always say the hybrid is formed. But I do not begrudge you this, it is obvious. You cannot have just a strictly money based society because you will always have little Timmy working 7 days a week making mittens, and that is inherently wrong. Somewhere, somehow, someone has to step in and make people based reforms to stop the effects of extreme capitalism.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a populace is morally healthy to begin with (Socialism can never enforce this because morality comes before politics), then a civil society will rise in a Capitalist system to take care of "the little guy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...hmm...hmmm...hmmm...I'm sorry Sophianic but that is nothing but spin. Socialism can never enforce a moral society because (gasp) morality comes before politics? ...Wha-wha-what??? Are you saying a society with people who are educated, well paid, have jobs they want, and that moves toward a robotic labor force, is not morally healthy?!? In what way ever?? Either explain that point in greater detail or I will refuse to give my view on it from now on.

By the way, in any system you're going to have immoral, unhealthy people.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, the conflicts between Socialists and Capitalists are endless because both are operating from different paradigms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not at all! Economics is economics in a goal oriented system. The goals of course are only founded upon two basic ideas. A capitalist values a society where the overall goal is the quest for profit, a socialist values a society where the overall goal is the quest to give people the education, employment, and more importantly the happiness they all deserve.

I used to be a capitalist too, but I only felt a need to defend capitalism simply because I grew up with it. We can all have lives that actually do something not just pay the bills.

Think of the Mozarts building drain pipes!

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

How can you justify giving equel wages to people with unequel jobs, some jobs are harder than others, not just in terms of more responsablity but by having more work. Giving the same amount of money to someone who works hard, and to someone who doesnt just isn't fair.

People would realise that, and there would be a distinct lack of people wanting to do harder jobs, and not enough 'dream' jobs that people wanted.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mind


MangalaIII says:

"Yes, but that wouldn't do much seeing as the rich aren't all Bill Gates rich and so their little contributions wouldn't do much. But what can the rich do to stop this bad cycle? They can stop giving campaign contibutions to politicians who share their childish beliefs that giving government money to poor schools is a bad thing!"

*****

Dude, if you look at the history of education in this country you would know that there is a direct connection between the amount of money government gives to schools and student performance. More government money=less student performance. In fact, the states that spend the least amount of money per student have the smartest students. Government money for schools has been growing steadily since the early 60's while student performance has been steadily declining. Yet, every year the socialists in this country say "more money for schools". And the next year performance goes down. Then the next year the socialists say "more money for schools", and student performance goes down again, and so on, and so on, and so on for the last 40 years. How can you stand by this paradigm? Especially when this effect has hit hardest amongst inner city schools.

*****

Also to the point of corporations looking for the cheapest labor. People in Taiwan used to work in what you would call "sweatshops". Now they are a world chip manufacturing titan with very few "sweatshops". Even the U.S. used to have "sweatshops". Now the sweatshops are in Cambodia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh. The work sucks but the people in these areas used to scrounge for a living through agrarian efforts. Now they have jobs making more money than ever before in their life. If there were better jobs to be had they would take them. BUT THERE ARE NONE. Do you expect that Cambodia is overflowing with white collar office jobs? Dude, come back to reality. You just can't wave your hand and create wealth for everyone. The only way you can do it is to tax rich people and give to the poor. My tax dollars already pay for bombs dropping in the middle east, for welfare recipients in the U.S., for failing schools, for senior retirement (social securtiy), soon for senior medication, I cannot also pay for lifting all the poor people in southeast Asia out of low wage jobs. Anyway, handing out money is the worst way to help someone...all you create is dependency. Why should poor people work if we give them money and food? Once there is a communist/distributive system in place, you have to create laws to force people to go to work, otherwise they wouldn't.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

OK mind, it's 2AM where I am, but your response has startled me enough that I feel I should answer you right now before I go to sleep.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude, if you look at the history of education in this country you would know that there is a direct connection between the amount of money government gives to schools and student performance. More government money=less student performance. In fact, the states that spend the least amount of money per student have the smartest students. Government money for schools has been growing steadily since the early 60's while student performance has been steadily declining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How can you even think about saying that?!? Think about private schools and rich towns with rich independent public schools. The per student expenditure is so large in my town that one inner city school could use two students to fill my spot! And my school was rated the seventh best public school in the nation! You cannot simply generalize like that Mind. Student performance has fluctuated over the last few decades with sometimes good effects from government spending and sometimes not. The only thing you are right about is the fact that you cannot simply throw money at schools and expect them to do better. But thats where the parents come in. Student performace is a function of both school motivation as well as societal and familial motivation. With equal pay and education, many parents will be able to provide the emotional and mental motivation needed to help the young who are not given a chance. The cycle gives good education to all. Which is good. Does anyone contest that giving everyone a good education is a good idea?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, every year the socialists in this country say "more money for schools". And the next year performance goes down. Then the next year the socialists say "more money for schools", and student performance goes down again, and so on, and so on, and so on for the last 40 years. How can you stand by this paradigm? Especially when this effect has hit hardest amongst inner city schools.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh...please..give me a break, when's the last time you heard a socialist say anything in a newspaper or on TV? You never hear anything from socialists, surely that was fabricated. And what about the schools? Schooling definitetly has not gone down in this country for 40 years straight so that is also a point I will not pursue.

And what? Hit hardest amoungst inner city schools? So inner city schools end up recieving hundreds of millions of dollars but they do horribly on state tests? That's ludicrous. We all know inner city schools formulate the most desperate ways to spread out their finances when given such little public money. So obviously more money does not equal poor performance or else inner city schools would have better school grounds and higher paid teachers than schools that are doing quite well in terms of performance. Money helps, believe me. You just have to understand socialists don't believe thats the only thing that helps.

Ok, for my next trick, I will try to find Mind's logic by asking him to make sense of these responses in his next rebuttal.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People in Taiwan used to work in what you would call "sweatshops". Now they are a world chip manufacturing titan with very few "sweatshops".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wrong, Taiwan still has a lot of sweatshops, and few laws outlawing them. Just because other companies need more chip factories doesn't mean everyone in Taiwan is sittin' pretty. By no means.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the U.S. used to have "sweatshops". Now the sweatshops are in Cambodia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh. The work sucks but the people in these areas used to scrounge for a living through agrarian efforts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So are you saying you've lifted these people up? Bravo, now instead of living on there own farms and working at their own pace, giving a little education to their children, and altogether working way less hours than before, we have people who work for 7 days a week, 14 hours a day making t-shirts trying desperatly to make a little more money for their starving family but never getting enough. And so what happens? The mothers try to have more children to make the children produce more money, the father deserts his family because it's too much work trying to keep his family alive, and the mother never gets to spend any time with her children because she's working all day as well. Is this better than the past? Not at all!! In every sweatshoped nation seniors speak of easier times as self-sufficient people. Humans are not made for factories! Do not believe that you have somehow made their lives any happier! That is just an excuse for the companies going in there to exploit their workers!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now they have jobs making more money than ever before in their life. If there were better jobs to be had they would take them. BUT THERE ARE NONE. Do you expect that Cambodia is overflowing with white collar office jobs? Dude, come back to reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No you come back! People don't make jobs! Jobs are a necessity for society to bring about work towards causes like room service and someone to serve your hot dogs. Companies would never create office jobs in Cambodia because too much money is to be made in the near slave labor of making stuff in other nations without much management! Companies don't care about the people, they only care about the money! Answer me once and for all, is that what you want? The pursuit of money to be more important than the pursuit of happiness for these people?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You just can't wave your hand and create wealth for everyone. The only way you can do it is to tax rich people and give to the poor. My tax dollars already pay for bombs dropping in the middle east, for welfare recipients in the U.S., for failing schools, for senior retirement (social securtiy), soon for senior medication, I cannot also pay for lifting all the poor people in southeast Asia out of low wage jobs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First of all, the standard wage would not be wealthy, something around $40,000 to $70,000 a year. Taxes are irrelevant, the process of switching to a fully socialist system from a hybrid hinges upon many factors not yet ready to be discussed in this forum.

Next you make the biggest falibility I've seen yet, you say that you're tax dollars would be spent on uplifting Asian countries under a socialist system. Please pay attention to what I'm saying! We are only talking about uplifting the poor and dismantling the rich's hold on America in America. No one brought up changing other countries policies but you Mind. But while we're on the subject, that might be a side effect of a culture that understands everyone deserves a chance to be educated and given a workable wage.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, handing out money is the worst way to help someone...all you create is dependency. Why should poor people work if we give them money and food? Once there is a communist/distributive system in place, you have to create laws to force people to go to work, otherwise they wouldn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OK, as already stated there are a number of other reforms listed besides just giving poor people more money!

Why should poor people work if we give them money? I'll give this to you in the simplest way possible. For one, POOR PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE POOR ANYMORE IF WE GAVE THEM MONEY AND EDUCATION. And as we all know, all socio-economic classes work.

But Mind you are annoying me with your name calling. I said in my opening statement VERY clearly that I am in no way a communist, so please, for all of us don't call me that ever again. I don't want the government giving any food to people, I don't want their to be a small minority in power, and I certainly do not want any propaganda ciculated or free speech stifled. Communism doesn't work.

People work because they get paid! It's a fundamental part of being a human in modern society! Why would you ever try to bring up some point about people being dependent on their paychecks?!? THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE. All people work only to get paid...unless your a volunteer...but that doesn't really matter at all does it...anyway I'm tired, I'm too angry.


Don't you guys want poor people to be happier? Don't you want companies to stop faking like they care about anything else than profit? Don't you want more people available to work towards the singularity? Don't you people want to help people? Please, please please, listen to me! Do not hate socialism! Forget about the Soviet Union, forget about what you think you know about Karl Marx! This is a totally different story here! Our society works such that you get a better life depending upon which household you get born into! Is not that inherently wrong? Why should rich people be better than poor people? Are poor people bad in some way?

- Mangala :-(

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Sophianic


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MangalaIII:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was because the market works so well that these companies were brought down. Cooking the books is not a race for capital, nor is it a consequence of a race for capital. It was the result of fear and dishonesty. It was the result of a serious moral breach. This breach is not a consequence of capitalism, but of a deadly bedfellow relationship between the State and the Market.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well obviously the capitalist market isn't good if a market that does well fosters "book cooking."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You're not being entirely honest here. A market that does well does not foster "book cooking." Unscrupulous persons foster book cooking. Citizens who lack individual initiative let them get away with it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A complete separation between State and Economy would re-institute child labor and destroy health regulations just like countries that have a complete separation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What is wrong with a child working if she or he wants to work? They wouldn't be working in the salt mines. Private, impartial NGOs can set guidelines for health and safety.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once and for all, which do you want, sweatshops or employee rights Sophianic?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How about individual rights? The individual. Remember?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The producer? Explain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A creator of value.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK!!! Sophianic we have our first contradiction that I was trying to sort out of your argument. You say on the one hand Socialist-Capitalist hybrids are bad. On the other hand you say laissez faire Capitalism would bring on the socialist reforms. So whats the problem here?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The problem is that I didn't say socialist reforms; I said social reforms.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end you always say the hybrid is formed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, I don't say that. I just don't see a concern for social reform as being incompatible with a system of capitalism.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You cannot have just a strictly money based society because you will always have little Timmy working 7 days a week making mittens, and that is inherently wrong. Somewhere, somehow, someone has to step in and make people based reforms to stop the effects of extreme capitalism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If little Timmy wants to work 7 days a week, let him work 7 days a week. If he feels that he's being exploited in any way, he can go to an agency that will help him make his case in the court of public opinion. What company would want to be excoriated for exploiting children. Social ostracism is a very effective antidote.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...hmm...hmmm...hmmm...I'm sorry Sophianic but that is nothing but spin. Socialism can never enforce a moral society because (gasp) morality comes before politics? ...Wha-wha-what??? Are you saying a society with people who are educated, well paid, have jobs they want, and that moves toward a robotic labor force, is not morally healthy?!? In what way ever?? Either explain that point in greater detail or I will refuse to give my view on it from now on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sigh. All I'm saying is that morality precedes politics, conceptually and logically speaking. No one in good conscience can legislate morality. A prosperous, morally healthy populace under capitalism would find ways to help those in need through programs of mutual assistance and private charity.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, in any system you're going to have immoral, unhealthy people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That goes without saying.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, the conflicts between Socialists and Capitalists are endless because both are operating from different paradigms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not at all! Economics is economics in a goal oriented system. The goals of course are only founded upon two basic ideas. A capitalist values a society where the overall goal is the quest for profit, a socialist values a society where the overall goal is the quest to give people the education, employment, and more importantly the happiness they all deserve.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Another false dichotomy. Both systems ultimately claim to want the same things; the question remains: which of the two is more in accord with human nature? The answer, of course, is capitalism. Socialism declared war on human nature.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used to be a capitalist too, but I only felt a need to defend capitalism simply because I grew up with it. We can all have lives that actually do something not just pay the bills.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And how does getting a life make it incompatible with capitalism?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think of the Mozarts building drain pipes!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But why can't they have a choice? You sound like a tyrant in the making!

Sophianic