508 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk


My point still stands, How can you justify giving equal wages to people with unequel workloads? Selected equality doesnt mean fairness.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mind

MangalaIII says:

"Communism doesn't work"

We agree on this point. I am glad.

You make good arguments, and I am glad you are so concerned about all peoples. What I am most concerned about is freedom for all people. Especially freedom of contract. Are sweatshop workers enslaved? Or do they choose to work in factories? If they all had a great subsistance life while farming they wouldn't work in factories, would they? It is just an honest question.

For me it boils down to human nature. Capitalism mines human desire for the benefit of society. Socialism uses tyranny to accomplish the same thing. I can see all kinds of abuses and suffering happening in the world and it is sad. However, I am not going to force the rest of the world to do what I (stress on I) think is the best for them. Because I do not know what is best for everyone. To me that is what socialism boils down to, a bunch of elitists telling everyone else what is best for them and society. I like the natural aspects of capitalism and libertarianism. Create a fair legal framework and then let the chips fall where they may. You are right when you say the U.S. is not purely capitalist (or libertarian), there are many unfair things going on. We should fix the unfairness, but my feeling is we should not resort to the tyranny of socialism.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

Also what about people making money form investing in the stock market? How are they going to fit into your equal wage for all scheme, if you don't stop them, the who equeal pay idea breaks down, if you do, you'll destroy the entire stock market.
If you stop people buy even private shares, which would also allow them to avoid a minimum fixed wage, then no one will start companies, and that'll lead to stagnation, and decline since some companies do go bankrupt, and this way there'll be fewer/no more to replase them.

People start companies to try to make some/more money without hte prospect of more money they wouldn't and I severely doubt theres going to many people starting businesses for the sole purpose of giving jobs to people.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

Thank you all for your comments. I might show this to my teachers as a kind of Socialist FAQ.

Mind, thank you for sort of seeing how much I want people to be free and happy! I in no way actually want to stifle any freedom. I just want to find the best system to help people in, and currently there are so many people who are not free and happy in capitalism, that I think socialism will help.

Sophianic. You really have a devotion to capitalism. But you fail to see how socialist reforms have helped this country in so many ways since the days of laissez-faire. I just have one question, are you an objectivist?

Kyle. I don't get your responses, they almost seem like you are desperately trying to defend capitalism just for the sake of it but not to serve the happiness of Americans.

And to all of you. We don't live in a capitalist system, we live in a socialist-capitalist hybrid because capitalism alone fuels child labor, extreme low wages, and bad working conditions. We need some laws based on helping people, or everybody would get paid sweatshop wages to keep profits high.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unscrupulous persons foster book cooking. Citizens who lack individual initiative let them get away with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well people become unscrupulous because they want to get as much money as possible. In socialism nobody would want anymore money because they would know nobody is better then anybody else. What does capitalism alone do to stop book cooking?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is wrong with a child working if she or he wants to work?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh please I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. No, I'm actually going to respond to that. Are you saying a child who sees his parents desperate not to starve and goes into a factory to work is someone who should work because he chooses to work? That is child exploitation and that is horrible. If you create conditions for a child to have to work, you make life horrible for these people. I'm talking 5-14 years old here Sophianic. What if your company had a policy that you weren't allowed to quit? What part of the company comes to save you if your wages change to 1 cent an hour? Obviously the government has to step in somewhere.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They wouldn't be working in the salt mines. Private, impartial NGOs can set guidelines for health and safety.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes during laissez faire kids were sent to the salt mines. And those who weren't were not because they weren't strong enough.

How come the NGO's didn't come to the rescue when little Timmy was sewing socks during laissez faire or in Asian sweatshops? The truth is everyday people don't care about people working in sweatshops unless the government comes in to help people.

Capitalism doesn't care about kids! It cares about profits!


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

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

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


How about individual rights? The individual. Remember?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OK fine, why don't you answer the question and tell me more about the individual.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A creator of value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Explain in greater detail


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


See this is what I get annoyed at! They are the same thing! And even if you disagree with that I'm the one who first used the word and so I get to define it in any context I want to. They are both reforms aimed at helping people. End of story let's move on with that definition.


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


Socialist reform is compatible with Capitalism. And yes there is a concern for it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We already went through Timmy and why he cries during his once a day 2 minute general break.

Oh and what magical agency is this praytell? The ones in eastern Asia that come to the rescue of little Li Mu and Chin Cho all the time? Oh wonderful agency thank the good ol' Western world you exist! (sarcasm's fun isn't it?)

What company?!? How about Disney, Eddie Bauer, Nike(that's a big one), Old Navy, and tons of other companies that went out and found cheaper labor who through being uneduated self-sufficient farmers, found themselves working in the worst conditions possible with no help from their government in other countries.

Stop contradicting. You want Timmy to work because society makes him have to work and you want Timmy not to work because it makes a company looks bad.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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


Well why can't I find and kill you? Hello! We legislate morality all the time!

Most people aren't morally healthy under capitalism because they want more money and will do anything to get it. Enron, Worldcom and Anderson.

Why can't the government do anything to help? Obviously the government has helped a lot to make sure sweatshops are gone.

What do you think Minimum wage is? A company policy? Put down our semantic shield and try to help people.


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

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

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


That goes without saying.

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


No it doens't go, because you talk about Socialism as if I'm saying its a Utopia. I'm just talking about the government stepping in to help those people who have pointless life's as cog's in the Rich's candy machine.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well Capitalism only wants to make some people rich, Socialism's goal is to make all people happy, rich people aren't necessarily even happy. Read Adam Smith and think about how different it is than what we live in today. Everyone should be living the high life in his writings.

I think the second part may be the first actual formidable point you've made. However it is my belief that human nature has a enough good in it to create a system where everbody has a life that is fulfilling and makes an impact on the world. Plumbing does not make an impact, it pays the bills. What postman wanted to be a postman when he was a kid?

After all, the good guy always wins in most stories. It is my belief that people want good to prevail.


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


Whoa there. There's no need for name-calling. This is a free and open discussion and I feel quite dissapointed that a moderator is actually promoting people not to respond. I might just turn off my computer right now and never give my opinion on saving the world.






;-)







Not. But Sophianic should settle down. I do want people to get a choice, and as I've explained, with the onset of equal education and wages, you can pick any job you want! In exchange you have to spend a month and a half doing some dirty work. What's the problem? You still get paid the same and you also get the same time a year in vacation. How am I a tyrant in the making at all if my ultimate goal is to make people happy? If people were not happy in the system its not like I'd want the government to continue with such a bad system. It's just that its never been tried before. I want to see if it makes people's lives meaningful in terms of getting to do what they want.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point still stands, How can you justify giving equal wages to people with unequel workloads? Selected equality doesnt mean fairness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Good point Kyle. That is actually something that is worthy of my rebuttal (haha...stupid socialist thinks he's a genius)

If you think socialism is weird, get a load of this, my kinds of socialist's believe workload is only a capitalist ideal. Imagine your dream job. Working on the AI, finding the elixer that would reverse aging, colonizing Mars. If you were paid the same for a government-checked-upon-humane working schedule with people who were educated as well, would work seem so much like a workload to you anymore? If you spend your free time writing about things like this but not getting paid to do it, is it slave labor or something you don't mind getting paid to do? The point is, I feel we should throw out all jobs that are simply "workloads" and assign them as menial jobs. Then we would make all other jobs things that people want to do, and don't care whether their getting more money than the guy next to them, they want to reach the singularity, they want to cure cancer, they want to work in one of the four big toilet paper companies managing people. All the jobs people want to do, people hopefully wouldn't be all that concerned with getting more money, as long as their living with $55,000 coming in, life's not bad at all.

All workloads would be menial jobs that people would have to do for a month and a half in exchange for being able to try to reach the singularity for the other 9 months a year(including the days taken off).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also what about people making money form investing in the stock market? How are they going to fit into your equal wage for all scheme, if you don't stop them, the who equeal pay idea breaks down, if you do, you'll destroy the entire stock market.
If you stop people buy even private shares, which would also allow them to avoid a minimum fixed wage, then no one will start companies, and that'll lead to stagnation, and decline since some companies do go bankrupt, and this way there'll be fewer/no more to replase them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What? How does minimum wage affect investors when dealing with a government owned company?

Oh! I'm glad you brought up that point! Yes, you are allowed to make extra money. Given that, you can buy private shares, but they would be public in a way. Only in the way that the government started the company in the first place. You see, when this whole thing starts(I'm going into the transfer from hybrid to full on social and that's not good but I'm starting pretty late in the transfer) governments will take over companies and start companies on their own if new companies need to be created to give people things, like more farming conglomerates. When governments start these companies, they will hire people like secretaries, managers, and CEOs. Starting companies on your own need not be the same anymore. What you would need to do is apply to start a company because you feel the public needs it for some reason. If this "judging agency" feels in any way that your product would help society, your new company would be created with the understanding that many workers are off doing what they want to do, so not many menial jobs can be created(until robotic labor, let's call that the Robo point) to do menial work.

Another point, menial jobs in this country would seriously have to be counted to understand precisely how much time a non-menial worker(let's call them NM workers) would have to work a year to fill the gaps of a menial worker before the Robo point. If the time is any more than 2 months, my whole system might have to be redesigned. Does anyone know how that can be found out and calculated?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People start companies to try to make some/more money without hte prospect of more money they wouldn't and I severely doubt theres going to many people starting businesses for the sole purpose of giving jobs to people.

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


Well people starting businesses just to make more money is bad isn't it? Shouldn't you start making a product to assist everyday life and help society, not just to make more money? And why, if there is a shortage of jobs, shouldn't the government step in to create more jobs. The judging agency might give a little slack to a few ideas and create businesses to help homeless people without a source of income.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are sweatshop workers enslaved? Or do they choose to work in factories? If they all had a great subsistance life while farming they wouldn't work in factories, would they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well what do you think? I gave you Timmy's example. He wants to work right? But if someone held a gun to your head and told you to dance, you'd want to dance right....for fear of getting shot. They choose to because they have to! Their countries' been industrialized, famrs have been bought up, there are no farms to live out your life away from companies anymore! You have to work at the main company or else you starve. That sound's like slavery to me, even worse, sharecropping, you're still getting paid something, but you're making so little(crops can be equivalized in monetary form for this analogy) that you can't switch jobs because there are no others. So you feel even more desperate than when you were enslaved, because it's "supposedly moral" slavery.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism uses tyranny to accomplish the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tyranny? What's with that word? How am I tyrannical If I want a democracy that will make more laws to help people who are stuck in the rat race living out meaningless lives?

What it comes down to is that socialism will have more people to create more progress for more happiness, and that is what we're after isn't it?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I am not going to force the rest of the world to do what I (stress on I) think is the best for them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well c'mon, even anti-child labor laws started out as the opinion of one person. Socialism doesn't force anybody to do anything anymore than our country forces people not to evade taxes.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me that is what socialism boils down to, a bunch of elitists telling everyone else what is best for them and society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well excuse me if my elitist friends and I are doing just what the continental congress did back during revolution, telling everyone what is best for society, forming two nations, the US and Britain, not one. Even the person asking for disability rights is telling everyone what is best for society. Please keep in mind this whole thing is simply an idea expressed under the pretenses of free speech.

By the way, I think we could even keep the exact same constitution in this country by switching from a hybrid to full on socialism. I don't see any basic right offended by socialism. Although my own belief is that no ordinary civilian should have gun, but that's just me and really has nothing to do with this thread(sorry, ).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create a fair legal framework and then let the chips fall where they may.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's both systems, the only thing you might question is whether you think the framework is fair.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right when you say the U.S. is not purely capitalist (or libertarian), there are many unfair things going on. We should fix the unfairness, but my feeling is we should not resort to the tyranny of socialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I just want to point out that Mind is proboably making the point that the unfairness in this country before(like poor people without any money to pay for a lawyer actually getting one(that suprised me, how ignorant of the rich is that?)) socialist reforms is solved by some socialist reforms but not stating that we should go even further to create a ton more of socialist reforms, is this correct Mind?

Anyway the basics of socialism is based on the government stepping in to stop the unfairness. If you want the unfairness fixed but not by the government, than who do you want it fixed by. Private companies? Just want to clear up your point.


OK, that's enough for now. And just for the record, I want to recommit my definition, calling Social reforms socialist reforms have the difference between them of calling clouds a gaseous form of water. Theyre the same thing please don't try to pin that down on me because just to make my point I could replace every "socialism" with "capitalism with more social reforms."

Bye.

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Calaban


I know, I will regret getting involved I this....


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sophianic:
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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MangalaIII:
I think the second part may be the first actual formidable point you've made. However it is my belief that human nature has a enough good in it to create a system where everbody has a life that is fulfilling and makes an impact on the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why is it, that you think that this is such an important point??? What about the transhumanist vision to actively transgress the boundaries of human nature?

And while I am at it, a further question:
Considering I am not very rich at the moment (by western standarts),
what political system should I rather support to archieve life extension?

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By BJKlein

I regret my lack of participation to this thread... I find it dificult sometimes to get excited about politics and human nature.

Also, we're working full force to get the new site up and going. (www.imminst.org)

I do drop in to read the posts though.. thanks!

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

Thanks for coming Caliban!


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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sophianic:
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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MangalaIII:
I think the second part may be the first actual formidable point you've made. However it is my belief that human nature has a enough good in it to create a system where everbody has a life that is fulfilling and makes an impact on the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it, that you think that this is such an important point??? What about the transhumanist vision to actively transgress the boundaries of human nature?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


uhh...what's a transawhatamist?

J/k, well the point I made before about the singularity and transhumanism is that in order to reach transhumanism faster, socialism could give us more scientists who would otherwise be trashmen and people who washed cars for a living. The more scientists, the faster the singularity is reached. The more people who have enough education to understand transhumanism, the less fear there is, and the more people would want to move towards it.

However, we might not reach transhumanism for a long time due to uneducated protesters and only a small amount of underfunded scientists trying to build a pathetic excuse for an AI in Capitalism.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And while I am at it, a further question:
Considering I am not very rich at the moment (by western standarts),
what political system should I rather support to archieve life extension?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First of all, this is economics, the politics are the same, democracies for both.

Well in capitalism you might get a few private companies with CEO's who are concerned with their mortality only in their last days as old rich white guys. I guess maybe then you could sit and wait for the cure for aging to come...that's just about what we're doing now.

Or you could hope for socialism and have a government that would have much more finances to use in order to allocate to "small causes"(the government in America no matter which system would proboably see the singularity as a small cause(little joke 'tween you and me..hehe)) and might open up a NASA-like division devoted just to transhumanism and would proboably have more researchers, better equipment and better organized goals then just selling fountain of youth vials...

But you know what? Its all speculative to tell the truth. Unless China were somehow to set up a social democracy after its communist regime collapses, the amount of time taken to actually get to a socialist country might compensate for the amount of time lost in the slowness of private companies to care about transhumanism.

Don't do anything
Capitalism->Private Companies->Waiting Period->Singularity

Maybe...70 years

Enact more social reforms
Capitalism->Socialism->Adjusting Time->Singularity

Maybe...80 years


About not being rich. Technically at this point both systems wouldn't help you out much. In capitalism you are already at the bottom and no one's gonna let you come near a laboratory dedicated to aging unless you have some doctorate in some scientific field...In socialism you already are assumedly uneducated and I don't know if there will be enough money left to educate the people who grew up in a capitalist system and are trying to live in a socialist system. That's a transfer problem for next thread. So I mean, maybe you're past your prime if you wanted to work on the singularity. I dunno, is the person you're talking about just poor, or does he have some skills in biology or computer science?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I regret my lack of participation to this thread... I find it dificult sometimes to get excited about politics and human nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(Sigh) I know what you mean BjKlein, I used to fall asleep while my friend was trying to explain to me stuff about socialism late at night...but now I'm pretty into it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, we're working full force to get the new site up and going. (www.imminst.org)

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


Cool! I can't wait.

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mind


Here is where the tyranny comes in. Say a country elects socialist reforms and everyone gets the same wage. It is a democratic society where people vote on things. Let us say they hated the socialist system after a few years and wanted to vote a libertarian/capitalist system in its place. Would they be able too? Is this an option for them? Socialists in power would not allow it to happen.

However a libertarian/capitalist system can easily vote in socialist reforms.

It is human nature. Give a socialist some power and you will never get it back.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Sophianic

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MangalaIII:
Sophianic. You really have a devotion to capitalism.

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


I am devoted to a system that respects the rights of individuals. That's the bottom line.


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

But you fail to see how socialist reforms have helped this country in so many ways since the days of laissez-faire.

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


But those so-called reforms come at the expense of the individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


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

I just have one question, are you an objectivist?

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


Methinks you have more than one question. In answer to your question, I don't give myself labels.


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

We don't live in a capitalist system, we live in a socialist-capitalist hybrid because capitalism alone fuels child labor, extreme low wages, and bad working conditions.

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


We live in a mixed economy because people have generally failed to see how important it is to safeguard their rights against those who would presume to impose their will on others.


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

We need some laws based on helping people,

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


We need laws that will protect individual initiative from the various forms of force, coercion and fraud.


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

or everybody would get paid sweatshop wages to keep profits high.

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


False. For example, look at the middle class. I don't see many sweatshop wages to keep profits high.


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


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

Unscrupulous persons foster book cooking. Citizens who lack individual initiative let them get away with it.

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


Well people become unscrupulous because they want to get as much money as possible.



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


People become unscrupulous because they're not paying enough attention to their moral conduct. Money is merely a temptation.


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

In socialism nobody would want anymore money because they would know nobody is better then anybody else.

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


This is false, and dangerously naive. Inequalities would exist because some people are more able, more talented, more competent. You'd have to be a tyrant to suppress these differences for people to think that nobody is better than anyone else, for people not to want to make more money than anyone else.


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

What does capitalism alone do to stop book cooking?

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


I refer you to an excellent article by William Thomas entitled "Enron's Lessons for Capitalism."

http://www.objectivi...-capitalism.asp


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


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

What is wrong with a child working if she or he wants to work?

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


Oh please I'm going to pretend you didn't say that.



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


But I did say it. And I mean it.


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

No, I'm actually going to respond to that.

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


Why, thank you.


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

Are you saying a child who sees his parents desperate not to starve and goes into a factory to work is someone who should work because he chooses to work? That is child exploitation and that is horrible.

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


If you had read my original reply, you would already know the answer to your question. "Should work because he chooses to work?" Your question belies an ignorance of freedom of choice, and this ignorance is likely the source of many of the endless and fruitless rebuttals you're giving us (or trying to give us).


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

If you create conditions for a child to have to work, you make life horrible for these people. I'm talking 5-14 years old here Sophianic. What if your company had a policy that you weren't allowed to quit? What part of the company comes to save you if your wages change to 1 cent an hour? Obviously the government has to step in somewhere.

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


I suggest that you do a little reading on the nature of a free market. That would clear up many of your misconceptions expressed here.


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


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

They wouldn't be working in the salt mines. Private, impartial NGOs can set guidelines for health and safety.

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


How come the NGO's didn't come to the rescue when little Timmy was sewing socks during laissez faire or in Asian sweatshops? The truth is everyday people don't care about people working in sweatshops unless the government comes in to help people.



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


Because they didn't exist yet? One might argue that people don't care precisely because they know the State will do it for them. And if it didn't, they would be compelled to organize and do it themselves.


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

Capitalism doesn't care about kids! It cares about profits!

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


Capitalism is a system, not a person. People care about kids. People care about profits. And people can care about both. There is no dichotomy.


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


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


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

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

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


How about individual rights? The individual. Remember?

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


OK fine, why don't you answer the question and tell me more about the individual.



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


But I did answer the question. In your zeal to rebut, it appears that it has slipped your mind. And I have told you about the individual -- see my replies to you in the topic on Suggestions for Building Wealth.


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


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

A creator of value.

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


Explain in greater detail.



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


In what context?


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


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

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

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


See this is what I get annoyed at! They are the same thing!



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


No, they are not. Not even remotely.


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

And even if you disagree with that I'm the one who first used the word and so I get to define it in any context I want to. They are both reforms aimed at helping people. End of story let's move on with that definition.

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


So now you get to play despot and make things up as you go along. Reforms made under Capitalism would be rather different from the ones imposed by Socialists. The latter (Socialism) would require the violation of your rights as an individual; the former (Capitalism) would not.


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


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

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

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


Socialist reform is compatible with Capitalism. And yes there is a concern for it.



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


Again, no it is not. Not at all compatible.


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


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

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.

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


We already went through Timmy and why he cries during his once a day 2 minute general break.



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


You're evading my explanation. You're not addressing my reasons for why I think it's acceptable for a child to work.


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

Oh and what magical agency is this praytell? The ones in eastern Asia that come to the rescue of little Li Mu and Chin Cho all the time? Oh wonderful agency thank the good ol' Western world you exist!

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


A private child protection agency, the kind that hasn't been given a chance to form and do its work because the State has its nose in places where it doesn't belong.


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

(sarcasm's fun isn't it?)

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


It's a poor substitute for a good argument.


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

What company?!? How about Disney, Eddie Bauer, Nike(that's a big one), Old Navy, and tons of other companies that went out and found cheaper labor who through being uneduated self-sufficient farmers, found themselves working in the worst conditions possible with no help from their government in other countries.

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


In a thriving system of global capitalism, it would be difficult if not impossible to find "cheaper labor." Standards of living would rise all around the world; sweatshops would become a thing of the past. Until that happens, however, the media can do an effective job of throwing a spotlight on those companies that attempt to exploit others in this way.


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

Stop contradicting. You want Timmy to work because society makes him have to work and you want Timmy not to work because it makes a company looks bad.

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


Stop misrepresenting my views. I want to give little Timmy the choice to work. If there is any hint of exploitation, it will be dealt with as I outlined above.


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


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

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.

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


Well why can't I find and kill you? Hello! We legislate morality all the time!



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


Take it easy. Settle down. If you kill me, you violate my right to life and you will be punished accordingly. You're confusing the legislation of victimless crimes (legislating morality, e.g., making drugs illegal) with the legislation of individual rights.


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

Most people aren't morally healthy under capitalism because they want more money and will do anything to get it. Enron, Worldcom and Anderson.

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


See the article cited above: Enron's Lessons for Capitalism.


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

Why can't the government do anything to help? Obviously the government has helped a lot to make sure sweatshops are gone.

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


At the cost of violating individual rights.


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

What do you think Minimum wage is? A company policy? Put down our semantic shield and try to help people.

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


Not at the cost of violating individual rights.


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


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


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

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

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


That goes without saying.



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


No it doens't go, because you talk about Socialism as if I'm saying its a Utopia.



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


That's your misinterpretation. I have not suggested any such thing.


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

I'm just talking about the government stepping in to help those people who have pointless life's as cog's in the Rich's candy machine.

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


But the government can't step in without violating someone's rights.


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


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

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.

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


Well Capitalism only wants to make some people rich, Socialism's goal is to make all people happy, rich people aren't necessarily even happy.



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


Capitalism doesn't want anything. It's a system, not a person. People who live under Capitalism want what's best for themselves and their loved ones, and if they have a social conscience, what's best for society as a whole -- without using State coercion to violate anyone's rights. The goal of Socialism is to use the State apparatus to take from those according to ability and give to those according to need. This is not only illegal (according to natural law), but immoral.


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

I think the second part may be the first actual formidable point you've made.

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


The most formidable to you.


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

However it is my belief that human nature has a enough good in it to create a system where everbody has a life that is fulfilling and makes an impact on the world. Plumbing does not make an impact, it pays the bills. What postman wanted to be a postman when he was a kid?

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


And what is wrong with being a plumber or a postwoman? Not everyone shares your lofty sense of mission.


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


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

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


Whoa there. There's no need for name-calling.



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


Another misrepresentation. I never called you a name. I merely suggested, by way of contrast, that you would become one if you tried to force anyone to do something against their will. Like work on drainpipes.


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

This is a free and open discussion and I feel quite dissapointed that a moderator is actually promoting people not to respond.

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


And now you're overreacting. You are free to respond. You did respond. And now I am troubled that you would characterize me in this way.


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

I might just turn off my computer right now and never give my opinion on saving the world.

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


But you didn't turn it off. And you did give your opinion. Whether it will save the world is very much in doubt, however.


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

Not. But Sophianic should settle down.

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


And Mangala should stop misrepresenting, misinterpreting, and overreacting to, the views of Sophianic.


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

I do want people to get a choice, and as I've explained, with the onset of equal education and wages, you can pick any job you want!

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


No, you don't. Equal education and wages? No such thing. Not now, not ever. People by nature are different - in their capacities, interests, and dispositions. Please respect this.


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

In exchange you have to spend a month and a half doing some dirty work. What's the problem? You still get paid the same and you also get the same time a year in vacation.

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


The "problem" is that I want a choice. If I am hard at work on a book and I want the momentum of my work to carry forward for more than nine months, I want the choice to do that. And I don't you or anyone else forcing me to do otherwise. Clear?


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

How am I a tyrant in the making at all if my ultimate goal is to make people happy?

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


I want everyone who is reading this to look closely at that question. Read it again if necessary. One does not make people happy. Please, please notice the irony in this question!

Sophianic

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

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

First, I doubt many people would start businesess just to provide people with a new product, if they wouldn't monetarily gain; but then I guess you think they would be nice enough to do that, so I don't see that being resolved since without a trial of you system on a large scale, it would be difficult to prove either way.

"I don't get your responses, they almost seem like you are desperately trying to defend capitalism just for the sake of it but not to serve the happiness of Americans."

You say that, and then say 'good point' to my responce, what points don't you get, where am I defending Capitilism for the sake of it? i've been pinting out the problems with a socialist system, not whehter people would be happier, since if it didn't work they certainly wouldn't.
But since I've said that, I think that many people wouldn't be happier in your world. Prehaps at first those who originally were below the new minimum wage, who suddenly got this raise would be happier, but as time went by they would start to get fustrated without being able to improve themselves further, They'd soon forget what it was like, and begin wanting more, that is things more money could buy. People wouldn't be satisfied, maybe you would, and some others, but I think the majority would be annoyed with never being able to get more wealth. No one would ever be able to dream to one day live in a huge house and be fabulously wealthy, since they would no they could never do it, in the end many people would start having more and more children, to get jobs requiring little or not training, and start earning money for the amily, and eventually some families would have more money, and others would start feeling jealous again?
Also how do you plan to do the swap over, (and you are going to have to face the swap over before any of the rest could becoem a reality) will you leave everyones personal wealth like it is, and just change salaries, or will you confiscate it? And what about he companies, will the new government buy them all (I doubt there would be the money) and make the owners fabulously wealthy, or would you just take them?

Another point is, if you don't do this all over the world simaltaneously, the wealthy would just leave the country for another, taking there wealth with them, virtually collapsing the economy.


Since you would be allowed to make extra money, some people would, and some people wouldn't be bothered, so eventually, you would end up with the same situation as today, and once again people would start saying it was unfair, and demanding more. ust because they would now all have enough to live on, doesn't mean they will be instantly, and perminantly happy, the majority of people won't just stop and be satisfied, they'll start thinking about having even more.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Sophianic

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by caliban:
What about the transhumanist vision to actively transgress the boundaries of human nature?

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


When I said "Socialism declared war on human nature," I meant that in the metaphysical (not biological) sense.


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

what political system should I rather support to archieve life extension?

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


In a nutshell, support a system that protects the flow of capital. Which means a system that protects the individual from force and fraud.

Sophianic

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

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Saille Willow

MangalaIII
I can understand your anger. When you see the suffering at grass root level, it is hard to see why greed is allowed to flourish, huge amounts of money is spend on status symbols[yes, it stimulates the economy , more jobs etc.] while millions are dying through lack of food. There are terrible suffering out there. Capitilism has not been able to solve it, neither has Socialism.

I have ambivalent feelings over the choice between capitalism and socialism. It is a fact that at grass root level, capitilism only seem to work for those and those countries on top of the food chain. On the other hand, socialism has failed miserably in Africa, with the same corruption and greed at the top as found in capitilism. As mind says, once you are in socialism it is very hard to get rid of. Dictators seems to flourish in socialism, which leads to human suffering on a grand scale. The population seem to get stuck in the 'boiling frog syndrome' untill it is too late.

I agee too that you can not legislate morality, of that South Africa is a perfect example. Human rights are firmly enshrined in our constitution. You can not even extradite a known murderer to a country with the Death Penalty. The reality of it is though, that it does not reach down to the people because we do not have the capital to afford the manpower to enforce the law. We have strong protection for the Labour force, yet the kind of sweat shop where people burn to death because they are locked inside of the factory, still continues we do not have the manpower to police it. Most of them are run by foreighn nationals. The workers exept the conditions without complaining to he courts, otherwise they face the reality of starvation. In South Africa, although rich by African standards, 50% of the population are malnurished. How is a genius going to spring from a mulnurished brain? Even the Opposition Party, who comes from a firm Capitilist base is proposing a basic income grant.

In Senegal, European companies have Fishing Rights, they bring in their huge ships, destroy the ocean bed by dredging it for sole, the once rich fishing fields , denuded and the European companies still gets angry when at last they are not allowed to fish during to spawning months. The result the local people are starving, who once used to make a living from the sea. Senegal is still as poor as ever, while the European companies can show a profit.

The Capitilism that exists to date is very short term in thinking. Short term profits regardless the costs to the environment or people. We need a capitilist system with immortalist views and compasion.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Sophianic

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Saille Willow:
MangalaIIII can understand your anger. When you see the suffering at grass root level, it is hard to see why greed is allowed to flourish, huge amounts of money is spend on status symbols[yes, it stimulates the economy , more jobs etc.] while millions are dying through lack of food. There are terrible suffering out there. Capitilism has not been able to solve it, neither has Socialism.

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


We must remember that Capitalism has never been given a chance to exist in a pure form (without State interference), nor has it been given a chance to exist long enough for the various elements of civil society to take hold and enact the necessary social reforms to counteract or alleviate the inevitable excesses of a pure system of Capitalism. But we must always remember that a government elected to protect the rights of the individual is paramount in minimizing societal conflict.

As an aside: as boring or as contentious as the topic of political philosophy seems to be, there will be no prospect of immortality (or Singularity of any kind) if the proper political and economic system is not implemented. This is one subject that no would-be immortal can afford to ignore.

Sophianic

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

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

Also Mangala, capitilism is not just huge multi national companies, who, like the trawler owning ones, just destroy the entire fish stock in an area, but the fishermen who suffer from it, they are fishing, eating some themselves, and selling the rest, to survive and ultimately better themselves; they are both capitilist. Ones just doing better than the other, supporting the idea of capitilism over socialism, does not imply that I wouldn't want to have controls put in place over these companies that are destroying huge natural reserves for short term profit.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mind

For all my support of capitalism, I recognize that it will probably not last past the singularity (like many other human social constructs). I feel that superintelligent beings will have the capacity to protect individual rights while advancing the supra-causes of society (and of course there will be much less reliance on material things for existence). However, I feel quite strongly that (pure)capitalism is the best method of operation to bring us to the point of singularity the quickest...given our current state of human nature.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

Well, Im going on holiday tomorrow, so I'll only be able to reply to any further posts in this debate later in the week. Now also seems the time to say that it's been nice to be able to have discussions like this, in a civilised manner, so thanks to all those who've participated, and BJK for running a great site

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Sophianic

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mind:
For all my support of capitalism, I recognize that it will probably not last past the singularity (like many other human social constructs).

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


Capitalism is not just a human social construct. It's a logical and moral extension of what humans by nature require to survive and flourish as a species. I can't see how the Singularity (as surge) will change this even with the remarkable advances in material comfort and security on the horizon.


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

I feel that superintelligent beings will have the capacity to protect individual rights while advancing the supra-causes of society (and of course there will be much less reliance on material things for existence).

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


There's a danger in relying too heavily on SI to chart a course for humanity. The State may usurp the use of SI, or SI may not want much to do with us, or SI may serve merely as an adjunct to human economic activity, or ...

Consider also that many people today live in relative material comfort, but still live in poverty.


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

However, I feel quite strongly that (pure)capitalism is the best method of operation to bring us to the point of singularity the quickest...given our current state of human nature.

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


Perhaps to the Singularity and beyond. I feel that it's important that we continue to entertain this possibility.

Sophianic

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

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mind

I will continue to entertain the possibility.

Individual freedom definitely needs to continue beyond the singularity.

I should clarify that when I spoke of "super-intelligent", I meant augmented humans, more so than machine intelligence.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By MichaelAnissimov

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism is not just a human social construct. It's a logical and moral extension of what humans by nature require to survive and flourish as a species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Right now, "capitalism" is just a word, right? Its real meaning is simply the aggregate of behavioral leverage that it has over all humans, collectively. "Capitalism" is not an actual object in physical reality, but a meme, a neurological pattern that is easy to teach, transmit, and can be effectively implemented in 1st world 21st century homo sapiens sapiens societies. Right now the set of markings/sounds that is the word "capitalism" has a lot of positive memetic connotations, like "freedom", "prosperity", and all that jazz. All these things are cool and great, but they're still just human neurological patterns. A neurological pattern in a transhuman, however, could be different in kind, transmitted differently, translated differently when explained to humans, lead to different behavioral patterns, etc. A transhuman "political" system could be an even greater logical and moral extension of the most "enlightened" present day political systems, but it would not be limited by the design constraints of human political systems in transhuman-transhuman interactions. An effective transhuman political system would subsume a less sophisticated human political system, perhaps creating an optimal environment where all sentient beings can survive and flourish (human political systems are currently optimized for humans only, and for some humans more than others, but in the event of a massive humanoid alien migration to Earth, our system might change to accomodate the new species).

Anyhoo, this says it better:
http://singinst.org/...anthropomorphic


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a danger in relying too heavily on SI to chart a course for humanity. The State may usurp the use of SI, or SI may not want much to do with us, or SI may serve merely as an adjunct to human economic activity, or ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oops, it wouldn't count as a superintelligence then - what you may mean is "an entity with transhuman capabilities but human-level goals and quality of intelligence". The State cannot "usurp the use of a superintelligence" no more than a banana slug can usurp the current human State - superintelligences are by definition not "usurpable", otherwise you're not talking about a superintelligence. Perhaps another word could be coined..?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I should clarify that when I spoke of "super-intelligent", I meant augmented humans, more so than machine intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


After a few rounds of self-improvement, do you actually think that there would be a substantial difference based upon what they originally were? If I grabbed two random people from their cribs at the age of 3 months, and had them live and work together for an additional 50 years, they may be very different, but probably not due to the differences in lifestyle they experienced for those 3 months.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State cannot "usurp the use of a superintelligence" no more than a banana slug can usurp the current human State - superintelligences are by definition not "usurpable", otherwise you're not talking about a superintelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well that depends upon the superintelligence. Some humans are more intelligent than others, so they could technically be superintelligences. And all humans are usurpable. I agree that a superintelligence with the capability of advanced self-improvement most likely would not be able to be controlled by normal human beings, but superintelligence varies depending upon its level of intelligence that surpasses the average human level.

I agree with Anissimov however, its total nonsense to think that a group of people able to get whatever they want and virtually be in heaven would need any money or a free market or a business structure based on finding the cheapest labor. If everybody's happy, what's the need for humans to even interact anymore? You could simply ask your SI to replicate your best friend for a second to talk to him about what he thinks about the world with SI or whatever. Neither Capitalism nor Socialism would be relevant with the onset of a God capable of giving an infinite amount of money to everyone and infinite femtotechnological labor to anything and everything. Sophianic you're taking your partisan relationship with capitalism too far.

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By MichaelAnissimov

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that depends upon the superintelligence. Some humans are more intelligent than others, so they could technically be superintelligences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nope. The current loose definition of a "superintelligence" is "a being with several million times the collective cognitive processing power of humanity in 2002". I would say that a superintelligence would be, by definition, several hundred Perceptual Transcends ahead of a typical human, or more. In any case, a human cannot be a superintelligence.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And all humans are usurpable. I agree that a superintelligence with the capability of advanced self-improvement most likely would not be able to be controlled by normal human beings, but superintelligence varies depending upon its level of intelligence that surpasses the average human level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It depends on how open-ended the supergoal revision system is. It may also depend on securing a human moral frame of reference. We are trying to create as smooth of a transition as possible from one era to the next. A being with the cognitive resources of a superintelligence but human-level goals would be a disasterous failure for the universe.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...its total nonsense to think that a group of people able to get whatever they want and virtually be in heaven would need any money or a free market or a business structure based on finding the cheapest labor. If everybody's happy, what's the need for humans to even interact anymore? You could simply ask your SI to replicate your best friend for a second to talk to him about what he thinks about the world with SI or whatever. Neither Capitalism nor Socialism would be relevant with the onset of a God capable of giving an infinite amount of money to everyone and infinite femtotechnological labor to anything and everything...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting how people always end up using religious metaphors for lack of anything else. To quote Mr. Kurzweil himself:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What does it mean to evolve? Evolution moves toward greater complexity, greater elegance, greater knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, and more of other abstract and subtle attributes such as love. And God has been called all these things, only without any limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence, infinite beauty, infinite creativity, infinite love, and so on. Of course, even the accelerating growth of evolution never achieves an infinite level, but as it explodes exponentially, it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So evolution moves inexorably toward our conception of God, albeit never quite reaching this ideal. Thus the freeing of our thinking from the severe limitations of its biological form may be regarded as an essential spiritual quest."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current loose definition of a "superintelligence" is "a being with several million times the collective cognitive processing power of humanity in 2002"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What dictionary defines a superintelligence as being that definition?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting how people always end up using religious metaphors for lack of anything else
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hehe I really didn't even realize I had used heaven and god in the same post. But in reality Mr. Kurzweil helps his point by using religious analogies. Religious beliefs whether fact or fiction have a very deep root in human nature. An extension of the moral psyche entwined with a desperate hope to explain the unexplainable. We the singulitarians have a worship of the SI, a worship of creating something better than ourselves in all ways. We dream of judgement day when the SI will make his coming and bring us to our lords kingdom. Those who want the singularity to come about are not just a bunch of Science Fiction extremists, we're a cult for God's sake. Whether we have wanted to or not, we have created a new religion, with Mr. Yudowsky as the prophet, gathering us together to worship the singularity, and Mr. Anissimov, Mr. Kurzweil, and even Mr. Klein our first priests, advising us on how to move closer to God, on how to study the writings better, on getting ready for the "Apocalypse."


...Anyhoo, this really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And that topic is the discussion of which economic system promotes the most progress towards moving towards the singularity, and which system promotes the most happiness along the way. After all, we wouldn't want to be (in the words of Eric Cartman) negative nancies all the way down the long walk to transhumanism would we? Of course not.

As of right now I haven't replied to Sophianic because I'm waiting for a friend of mine to finish writing a post on why he thinks capitalism, and more importantly objectivism in general, is inherently wrong. But I can reply to a few other people however:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
capitilism is not just huge multi national companies, who, like the trawler owning ones, just destroy the entire fish stock in an area, but the fishermen who suffer from it, they are fishing, eating some themselves, and selling the rest, to survive and ultimately better themselves; they are both capitilist. Ones just doing better than the other, supporting the idea of capitilism over socialism, does not imply that I wouldn't want to have controls put in place over these companies that are destroying huge natural reserves for short term profit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kyle I've debated the ills of capitalism from big ol' CEO Joe to poor ol' fisherman Joe. I understand the difference between the two and I openly hate the fact that there's a real feeling of superiority between the two, as if one works harder, or is better in some way than the other, when really the only difference is that one went to "Kipling's Private School" while the other went to "P.S. 131." But you do see what I mean from the example you gave right? These companies and their workers are caught in the loop of only trying to get the fish for short term profit and so the government has to step in to tell them that they shouldn't kill all the fish. And I never said you did not want any limits on what companies should be able to do, I was only questioning you to find out what your actual position is. And I'm glad, you do want some limits on what some tyranical CEO's want to do, that's better than some people in this debate who would like to let the CEO's do whatever the Hell they want. After all, you elect your government and they have the power to step in. But who elects the CEOs? Why should you let someone run around unchecked by the government with that much power? I'm sorry but I do not trust companies to run free without limits. Somone has to step in to stop them. And no I don't think private companies with CEOs of their own should be entrusted to stop them. At least our a democracy like ours has a three branch system so it can even check itself, but companies with that much money become little monarchies with upper management regarded as noble kings and queens.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is where the tyranny comes in. Say a country elects socialist reforms and everyone gets the same wage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Good, I'm listening


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a democratic society where people vote on things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OK, so we've made the connection good, very good. Socialism can work under a democracy! Stalin was a total fascist.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us say they hated the socialist system after a few years and wanted to vote a libertarian/capitalist system in its place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dammit! Socialism failed? (sigh)But we tried and thats what counts right? ...Well capitalism wasn't sooo bad, let's go back.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would they be able [to go back to capitalism]? Is this an option for them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course...it's a democracy right?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialists in power would not allow it to happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh..........My.........Good........Lord


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However a libertarian/capitalist system can easily vote in socialist reforms.

It is human nature. Give a socialist some power and you will never get it back.



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


................I'm sorry. I'm just so sorry.....I tried....I really tried....BUT FOR SOME GODDAMN REASON WHENEVER SOMEONE THINKS ABOUT SOCIALISM, THEY AUTOMATICALLY THINK ABOUT COMMUNISM, AND THEN IT GOES STRAIGHT TO THREE PEOPLE: CASTRO, ZEDONG, AND WORST OF ALL STALIN.

C'mon people in order to have a discussion we can't have these stupid sterotypes. I mean, do you really think it's in every socialists human nature to automatically want to take over the world? That's horrible! It's a democracy for goodness sake. Why would the senate, the president and all eight supreme court justices not let the people get rid of the equal wages act of 2042 or the universal health care act of 2044? Who has this much power? Please, for this whole discussions sake, when you think of socialism, please move Cuba, China and the Sovet Union to the back of your mind because it has nothing to do with our version of socialism.


I proboably would have done myself a favor by calling the whole thing progressivism instead of socialism, just so you people wouldn't be so prejudiced against it...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must remember that Capitalism has never been given a chance to exist in a pure form (without State interference), nor has it been given a chance to exist long enough for the various elements of civil society to take hold and enact the necessary social reforms to counteract or alleviate the inevitable excesses of a pure system of Capitalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In late 19th century America how did the government interfere at all? You're saying that's not pure capitalism? I dread to think what is. Slavery perhaps led by one man who has all the money in the world?

Various elements of civil society? What do you think the government is? An element of warm flapjacks? Hello, the government stepped in and we're all much better off because of it. Does anyone contest this? That the government's reforms did help immigrants and poor people in general get out of poverty?

And also you say that there are excesses to capitalism that have to be reformed right? So capitalism in its pure form does not help all people, so an altered form of capitalism is necessary to make people happy right?

Please just answer this question Sophianic, do you value human happiness at all for anyone but yourself?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But we must always remember that a government elected to protect the rights of the individual is paramount in minimizing societal conflict.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ohhhh no you don't. Don't you pin that "Socialism can only have a dictatorship" crap on me. Socialism is nothing more than a capitalism without classes. That has nothing to do with politics at all, you could have anything from a theocracy to direct democracy under both systems. How does getting the same amount of money in any way affect your ability to organize a democratic government that obeys the majority? Stalin was a tyrant, but remember you still could have capitalism during 15th century England.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
socialism has failed miserably in Africa, with the same corruption and greed at the top as found in capitilism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Sallie! Well under any system African countries fail. African countries have way too much to deal with, what with capitalist companies' pollution causing great famine and the inability to go straight from colonial rule to a free and happy society. Africa in general is a hard place to implement anything because Africa is a continent filled with countries that don't fit the ethnic backround. Borders were created that sliced right through tribal government that sometimes have been working fine for thousands of years. Please don't blame socialism for Africa's inability to create a functioning government(not that I'm saying you are) that works quite well economically too. No matter which system in sub-saharan Africa, socialist or capitalist, African countries(even South Africa) are doing badly. My point is, Africa needs some serious government work first before we debate the efficiences of economic systems.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are terrible suffering out there. Capitilism has not been able to solve it, neither has Socialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, even though I could take this from the view that capitalism is always wrong, for both Sophianic and my sake, I have to make the case that both of us are saying that his form of capitalism has never existed in its true form and neither has my version of socialism, only combinations of the two have brought on social problems. Plus, I'm not saying socialism will bring us to Utopia. There will still be suffering in the world no matter what system there is.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mind says, once you are in socialism it is very hard to get rid of. Dictators seems to flourish in socialism, which leads to human suffering on a grand scale.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wrong, dictators flourish during political and economic change. But then again since I do not view the Soviet Union as being a socialist country, I have no proof either way. Therefore I will only say this, Americans will never go quietly into the night led by a dictator after living in a democracy for so long. Even if it were true that 51% of the time a dictator is formed under our form of a socialist country, Americans are not stupid, we would never willingly accept an economic system that has to be coupled with a dictatorship.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have strong protection for the Labour force, yet the kind of sweat shop where people burn to death because they are locked inside of the factory, still continues we do not have the manpower to police it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WE have strong protection for our labor force and therefore there are no sweatshops in this country. Sweatshops in other countries however are not considered our jurisdiction, and so manpower is irrelevent, because we enforce nothing in other countries other than economic tyranny. Its sort of an international law that economics can spread to other countries, but economic morality doesn't have to.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the Opposition Party, who comes from a firm Capitilist base is proposing a basic income grant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Are you saying socialists don't want to help people in other countries?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need a capitilist system with immortalist views and compasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd like to explain something to you guys to set the record straight. My version of socialism could just as well be called capitalism. All I'm really asking for is a few more socialist reforms. Does it say anywhere in the holy "Book of Capitalist Definitions" that everyone cannot get the same education? Or that taxing the rich and giving to the poor invalidates capitalism? What about healthcare, does it say anywhere that rich people always have to have a better right to life than poor people? If so, tell me so I can go to a dark corner and cry about how evil people are to other people.


OK so I'm still waiting for my friend to give his opinion. Until then keep linking socialism and dictatorship, capitalism and democracy, and stalin with equal healthcare. What do I care? I proboably secretly want to drink the blood of Bill Gates for some reason.

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk

Firstly I'd like to make sure it's clear that, I'm not linking you reforms to communism etc, as that involved jobs for life, no democracy, and other ideas that I am pleased to see you don't consider viable. Although (as I'm sure you're aware) your ideas would require careful supervision to ensure they did not become the first steps in a slippery slope to far more 'reforms' that could lead to complete destruction of the economy. Remembering that many revolutions started with people making more reasonable ideas, but then escalating, despite the efforts of the people orginating the initial reforms.

And of cause while the government is elected, there are many more people for individual to 'hide amoung' when responsability is called for, especially in the departments where people its not the elected people working, especially amoung civil servants. Also while the government does introduce some controls, it has a vested interest in companies making large profits, since these generate large taxes, and as aresult of the people in power being elected, they are often happy to see 'lax' controls from others, since it makes there revenure lager, and as they're elected, they often, know they when they're likely to notget in again, and so don't much care about the longer term consiquences. In all, the Companies are the ones that logically should be more worried about over exploitation of resources, )although often inexplicably they are not) since they will suffer the most from a loss of material supply, ie, they go bust.

Some independant body is needed, or more people who can see beyond, the next tax income report, or balance sheet.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly I'd like to make sure it's clear that, I'm not linking you reforms to communism etc, as that involved jobs for life, no democracy, and other ideas that I am pleased to see you don't consider viable. Although (as I'm sure you're aware) your ideas would require careful supervision to ensure they did not become the first steps in a slippery slope to far more 'reforms' that could lead to complete destruction of the economy. Remembering that many revolutions started with people making more reasonable ideas, but then escalating, despite the efforts of the people orginating the initial reforms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow...thank you. Kyle you really, actually understood the point I was making. I definitely thought I would have to explain my position again. Thank you for looking at the discussion so analytically. And yes I understand that massive changes going on all at once could fuel a mass feeling of radicalism that could very well acheive the opposite of what socialists want. But I have faith in the American system of law making. The "Equal medicare act" could come 20 years after the "Equal wages act." In fact many of my friends agree that in order to bring about more socialist reforms is to do it very slowly, so as not to bring about another red scare. If you look at history, the 20th Century has brought a general movement from the right to the left. This by no means conservatives have bad ideas, or that they are stupid! I agree with the right on many things, like not throwing money at things and expecting them to work, and reducing the size of government to decrease beaureacracy. But moving towards the new left has brought equality in terms of race, creed, gender and age. Why is money so different? In these other categories the point is that no one is superior. Why should the rich be considered better? Contrary to popular belief there is no correlation between production and salary in rich vs. poor, only in poor vs. broke. It's all random, and mainly has to do with what values you grew up with. If you grew up with values such as education and investing knowledge, most likely you will live a happier life than those who come into this world without these values. Bill Gates should not have a better right to life than I should just because he built up a powerful company. They are not related.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
while the government does introduce some controls, it has a vested interest in companies making large profits, since these generate large taxes, and as aresult of the people in power being elected, they are often happy to see 'lax' controls from others, since it makes there revenure lager, and as they're elected, they often, know they when they're likely to notget in again, and so don't much care about the longer term consiquences. In all, the Companies are the ones that logically should be more worried about over exploitation of resources, )although often inexplicably they are not) since they will suffer the most from a loss of material supply, ie, they go bust.

Some independant body is needed, or more people who can see beyond, the next tax income report, or balance sheet.



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


...hmmm...I don't understand. How does the government get to tax people more when companies make big profits? And if it does, yes you are right, we need some kind of independent body to see past the dollar signs...

But I don't know what else there is except the body politic and the companies giving industrial goods to the people. Maybe non-profit organizations? Maybe. But it is my belief that the only real body that can look past the dollar signs in the interest of the people is the government. Maybe we will have to change whatever causes your belief that governments tax people more when companies make more money. But until you tell me what you think causes this, I cannot conjecture.


Other than that I just want to thank Kyle for actually believing I don't want to take every CEO in this country and blow ver brains out. Socialist ideas may seem radical, but they could be very close to home if your end goal is to help people live better lives.

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mind

I'd still rather have freedom, but that is just me.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mangala

Oh c'mon Mind, you can't just reply with that. That's the reply of someone who just doesn't want to say anything serious. I could have just started this topic out by saying: Socialism is right in all ways no matter what. But the point of this topic is to discuss the pros and cons of Socialists vs. Capitalists in order to determine for yourself which system is the best for which values. Please engage me in a conversation about the real problems that you see with the system presented instead of arbitrarily saying "I'd still rather have freedom." By saying that, you have said that you have not presented any real argument at all. You have equivalently given up on the topic. And those who do not care about this topic, proboably don't help the topic by writing about it.

Also, no offense, but, what do I care? I already said freedom can exist in both systems, what's it to me if you in particular like freedom but couple it with a comparison to nothing?

- Mangala

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mind

MangalaIII, maybe you haven't really been cognisant of what you are saying. Let me pull out a mirror.

"governmental control of all fields of business"

"If a person were to work not as hard as they should be, they would be fired"

"jobs can be allocated"

"Man is lazy until he's told to get off his ass and help people"

"How am I tyrannical If I want a democracy that will make more laws"

"my own belief is that no ordinary civilian should have gun"

"most of all I despise Capitalists"

"I spit on our way of life!"

*************************
Reading all your posts makes me scared for my freedom. That is why I re-affirmed my allegiance to individual freedom. I do not spit on our way of life, I just disagree with some aspects of it. I argue with socialists but I do not despise them.

Let me tell you a story about my brother. He works one of these jobs you call menial...and he loves it. He just sorts goods in a warehouse. He quit a job he worked for 10 years because the company kept wanting him to take a foreman position with higher wages but more responsibility. He wants a job with no thinking involved. The less thinking the better. He wants to works his 8 hours (or more hours if he wants more money), and then go home and do the things he likes to do. Hunting, Fishing, playing cards, taking care of his child, riding horse. Thats it. He loves it. He doesn't want anything to change. He doesn't want his hobbies to be work. In my own mind I think...he is smart enough that he could do something else, he is just lazy or something. BUT THAT IS WHAT I THINK, not what he thinks. Many people have different views on life and work. I do not know what all people want or what will make all people happy. Therefore I support individual freedom. And before you say "no one has real freedom in the U.S." again. I re-state that I think the current system is not optimized (same as you). I agree that the hybrid is not good, but I fall on the side of more freedom instead of greater state control.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Lazarus Long

I see this alleged dichotomy of Socialist and Capitalist Doctrine as more of an abstraction of memetic imperatives; neither model can be said to exist in any semblance of its theoretically pure form nor can either be optimized to meet the demands of pragmatic reality. Society hasn't always but is now evolving faster than the models used to define its economic relationship to itself and the environment. Both offer advantages under specific conditions and both have their drawbacks. Both exist as synthetic alternatives to promote a rational middle course. It is arguable that Socialism is already such a synthetic alternative to the more extreme proposition of communism. This can be dealt with later.

Capitalism as an example allows for a more humane marketplace with regard to individual rights but fails to protect against the avarice and excess of oligarchic stratification of wealth and power that it makes possible. Socialism can prevent oligarchic stratification by excessive limits on personal freedom that stifle innovation, motivation, and yet still fails to prevent a plutocratic stratification of wealth and power though this time less dependent on individual prowess and more upon adaptation to bureaucratic memes.

Both systems fail miserably at defining wealth in ecological terms. Both are abstract human paradigms that have little or no ability to relate beyond primitive Social Darwinism when confronted with a complex standard for environment as a non-competitive element of wealth, aesthetic value, and interdependency.

The concepts of the Commons has validity but only as much as the Market at relating to how individuals and groups can behave with regard to concerns that are not simply human in motivational terms. Resources are seen as limited in their potential for exploitation by a set of concerns that are predicated upon survival and less upon defined and desirable sustainability.

Part of the problem with these economic paradigms is that they are products of feudal minds addressing the changes they perceived in early and mid industrial age social growth. These seemingly dichotomous propositions are reaching the end of their usefulness for meeting the challenges that are now being faced.

Capitalism is a defense against the excesses of the State in regard to the control over the means of production and the profit from that activity and Socialism is a defense against the excesses on individual corruption and exploitation against the commons. Balancing the concerns of society at both the level of the individual and the commons is no easy task and it is the very essence of the definition of a Civil society that is at stake. But what is needed now is a synthetic alternative to both these camps. One that protects and foments individual liberty, creativity, and concern while fostering a minimalist bureaucracy that is nevertheless effective at establishing social safety for market practices, environmental risk, and general behavioral intercourse. I see this in evolutionary terms.

It is recognizable that that what I am describing is the end of Natural Selection as a the governing principle for human social development with a need top replace it with a more comprehensive understanding of Human Selection oas the governing force for all life on Earth. In acknowledging our species unique interactivity and responsibility for dominance of the global ecology we must also establish a new standard of wealth that is as significant in its importance and practicality as the earlier transition from simple barter economy to standards of "currency", which utilized abstract principles of number and conceptual value to create the modern marketplace. Obviously this is no simple challenge but it is crucial to our ability to prevent global holocaust by creating a new paradigm that allows for trade and exchange in a more equitable fashion than is currently possible. We are at a watershed in the evolution of wealth as a concept.

To use a linguistic example when describing an object of very significant and unique worth it is often said to be "priceless". Clearly we don't mean "worthless". What is being described is the intuitive comprehension in all people that some things are beyond the ability of our economic paradigms to establish value. This is true for many criteria that are universally accepted but also it is an area of profoundly disturbing subjective quality. It is for these more subtle and diverse qualities that we are now challenged with establishing an objective standard for worthiness. How much is that "soul" in window? Can you be bought, and if so what is your price? When applying this to the environment as a whole the metaphors are less obscure and more pertinent. But remember that all life on earth defends its inalienable rights through human proxy because the only tools possessed are tooth, claw, and toxin for the innate defense of territoriality that is more objectively understood as "habitat". What does the vole understand of marketplace and actuarial tables as it becomes an URP (unidentified road pizza) or the deer a bloody hood ornament? Clearly as we attempt to weigh the importance of ecological and environmental issues the very lexicon of value and the standards of all human marketplaces begin to fail in effectiveness.

These standards that have held sway for so many millenium are no longer effective guides toward future human, and consequentially (at least as long as Humans dominate) all living development on Earth. We are entering the last phase of the Information Era. It can be said that the Era of Information began with the innovation of the "word" but it is more clearly understood to have begun with script. Ironically the parallel development was the invention of abstract numbers that seem to also coincide with the invention of money.

This Late Information Era overlaps the early Age of Relativity that is inclusive for the various periods of industrial, social, environmental and economical Human Development. The Epoch of Natural Selection can be seen as ending and it is currently being replaced with the Epoch of Human Selection. That is unless we destroy ourselves in this process or are in turn usurped for dominance by third party influence. Both Seed AI bringing about a Singularity and Cosmic debris are examples of possible third party forces that can knock the human off its perch at the top of the food chain but the power of information is making it possible to compete even at this level.

At its core all economic theory is predicated upon evolutionary imperatives for resource control and acquisition for the purpose of promoting one's individual and species survival. The methodologies can vary as they adapt to different environmental and species specific necessities but this isn't a religious issue it is a pragmatic one. There are no sacred economies only effective ones and the ones that are in turn replaced due to their failure at competing. This is how come it is so easy to extrapolate from "Survival of the Fittest" to a "Social Darwinistic" principle. But when doing so the latter is usually manipulated to promote one's ideology over another and not for the purpose of etymological understanding.

Because of my attempt to share the development of these theoretical relationships for economics and evolutionary theory in my "Human Selection" yahoo group http://groups.yahoo..../HumanSelection a paper was submitted for our review that is scheduled for publication this coming November 2002. I would like to offer this paper into the discussion as support for the evolutionary underpinnings of the debate and suggest a review by those of you that feel sufficiently well versed in economics to analyze their work and relate it to the discussion at hand. It is called "Natural Selection and the Origin of Economic Growth" by Oded Galor and Omer Moav and may be read at this link http://papers.ssrn.c...tract_id=246300 It is 58 pages long in a PDF format so I don't think it is appropriate to post the entire publication here.

I will cross post this response there as well because I see this as a very important issue that is only now developing into rational terms for discussion.


Lazarus Long

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Mind


Lazarus says:

"But what is needed now is a synthetic alternative to both these camps. One that protects and foments individual liberty, creativity, and concern while fostering a minimalist bureaucracy that is nevertheless effective at establishing social safety for market practices, environmental risk, and general behavioral intercourse. I see this in evolutionary terms."

This is all good and fine. I see it in evolutionary terms also, but we haven't evolved to the point where a synthetic system can be installed. A synthetic system counter to our "competition for limited resources" meme would meet resistence because we are still dealing with fuedal minds (me included). I admit that I am a slave to my biology. Other people are too, we all have sex, we all have to eat, we all have emotions like greed, happiness, love, sadness, anger, etc...

I don't want to sound too flippant or critical Lazarus but the ideal presented in the quote above sounds like a utopia that so many others have tried to implement since the dawn of agriculture. It would be great to have such a system, but I feel it cannot be "implemented", it has to evolve. (Ok, maybe you are not suggesting a forced implementation, maybe I reading to much into your post)

Based on our current pace of rapid technological advancement, I feel we are quite near this ideal "synthetic alternative". The transition will come about as the world becomes more interconnected. With a growing communications network across the globe, we can more easily see what is happenning to other people. We will be able see whether our selfish actions are having a positive or negative affect on other people or cultures (or on the environment). As we enhance or mental abilities with our technology we will be able to share our thoughts more efficiently with larger groups of people. I feel these advancements will lead us naturally into the synthetic alternative you talk about. I don't feel I am being too optimistic to assume it will arrive before 2015.

With that said....until the day comes....my personal support falls more on the side of individual freedom than government control.

I read the article that you posted. It is interesting...the facet of evolutionary pressure towards higher quality offspring rather than quantity. This would seem to be common sense in a technologically advancing society (smarter=more successful). It is something I have thought about in the past, but I would never been able to quantify it so astutely as Moav and Galor.

[Bruce Klein]

Originally Posted By Kyle65uk


Mangala,
All I ment by the government having a vested interest in companies making large profits quickly, was that since they tax on a percentage, bigger profits mean more money, also as there isn't an equel tax level, instead a sliding scale, the more profits a company makes (up to a point) the bigger the percantage the government takes. As the people ultimately responsable are elected, they will want to make as much revenue while they are in office, (for various government projects) to make them look good, if this means that there will be a collapse of a economic sector 4 years after they leave, they're not going to worry, and in fact many would be pleased, as it would make their time in power look even better.



Also, what were you planning to do about the transition of companies being owned by the public to being all government owned, would the government; buy shares in public companies slowly, do mass hostile take overs, force sale of all shares and thus control in all private and public limited companies, buy the companies as a whole at a normal selling value - especially where a private limited company is concerned where the whole company could be worth much more than its two £1 shares, or would you simply confiscate shares/company. What about sole traders/unincorporated companies, & partnerships. And what about the profits from the government owned companies, where would they go.

Anyway its nice to see that you understand that I'm trying not to support Capitilism for the sake of it, nor make up groundless assumptions, 'Comrade' Mangala