• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Socialists Vs. Capitalists


  • Please log in to reply
508 replies to this topic

#61 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 August 2002 - 09:02 PM

Originally Posted By Lazarus Long

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mind says:
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)

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


Fair enough, I am sounding utopic but no more irrational than trying to discuss a "Singularity". Frankly we, both as a collective and individuals have a lot more to say about it than we do a coming "Singularity"' and what that might herald for individual liberty.

I am not trying to "implement" a utopia I am simply trying to keep my eye on the prize, you are wise to be skeptical. Too many cons begin with a similar appeal to our avarice for *goodness*.

That said I don't think that it is inappropriate to try and assess goals no matter how far reaching. I am simply pointing out that humans are the only species that is evaluating the bill for planetary maintenance and we are also a product of that economy. We have a clear dilemma and our inability to figure the bill spells doom. So instead I try to be optimistic and offer methodological approaches for integrating new paradigms into our memetic systems.

I think we are also getting to a crucial nexus of adaption, a period of widespread global social mutation. But there is no certainty as to the outcome from this metamorphosis. There are numerous probabilities to assess but there are far too many variables still to determine humanity's fate. So why not load the dice?

A good meme is better than a bad one and lets go forward from there. Still I agree that we should never forget the 'Law of Unintended Consequences" and that the "Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intention".

I don't believe in Freedom, I practice and defend it for myself and others. I don't promise it, I strive for it. Ultimately for good or ill this "Synthesis" will be what we make it. I am a good old fashioned American Pragmatist from the Tianguis School of Market Dynamics. So in order to be practical lets make it the noblest and finest alternative possible and to hell with second best.

Lazarus Long

#62 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 August 2002 - 09:02 PM

Originally Posted By Mind


Yes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (one of my favorite quotes also). It is difficult to develop a "good" meme. Their are so many variables. I figure even if 500 of the brightest people on the earth gathered and created a new social construct for us all to live by, it would most likely fail on many levels. By chance, it might be the best mode available for the present day but odds are highly against it. That is why I support a more distributive effort (like the U.S. ideally should be). A distributive effort would mimic nature in a way. Nature is highly varied and is very robust. Because of the variation that exists, nature easily adapts to change (ie. climate). So...Give the U.N., U.S., and E.U. (or other supra-national powers) only very limited power and then let the states and smaller communities try different modes of operation. Successful modes (or memes) would flourish and eventually be duplicated by the rest of the states. With more variation in the memes more of the variables are naturally factored into the process. Using this type of process to develop the optimum meme, we wouldn't know the outcome. This fact would make a lot of people in power (politicians) uneasy. And therein lies the biggest problem. Unfortunately the trend around the world in the last couple decades has been to coalesce more power in the hands of fewer people. This is bad in my view. (maybe I am repeating myself here...lol...I have made so many posts on this topic). So my ideal world would give Lazarus and his community (or his state) the freedom to mold their meme, their economic policy, their social construct. MangalaIII (and his community or state)should also have the freedom to institute social changes they deem important. With hundreds or thousands of different memes operating across the globe we would be testing out all the variables. With the increasing interconnection I was talking about earlier, people in different corners of the globe would have good access to the different social constructs and be able to evaluate them.

This type of system has been going on across the globe to a certain extent, but there is still the problem of people in power trying to dictate social policy to large groups of people (continent scale implementation).

So Lazarus, you mention "keeping my eye on the prize" and "asessing goals". A distributive architecture in human societies is what I would strive for. In any case, I am thankful for the internet as it gives more people greater opportunity to input their thoughts on the future direction of society.

#63 Sophianic

  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 30 August 2002 - 09:37 AM

Originally Posted By MichaelAnissimov

Right now, "capitalism" is just a word, right?


In a word? No. And the quotes around Capitalism are unnecessary. Capitialism is a concept -- a concept that depends on other concepts, and that requires a definition to distinguish it from other concepts. This is basic epistemology, not to be confused with memetic transmission. These two subjects are valid but distinct areas of study and the attempt to obfuscate their distinction is self-serving. The attempt to blur the distinctions between the the neurological, the logical and the epistemological doesn't help either.

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..?


Back to reality, again. At present, there is, as yet, no definition of SI that is based on anything real. It all rests on speculation. My response to Mind considered many such speculations. SI, through a merger of biological and non-biological intelligence may become sentient and all-powerful, to the point where it can alter ontology, or it may not. When I said "The State may usurp the use of SI," I was merely speaking to the possibility of a State taking control of a non-sentient but very powerful source of intelligence.

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

For the record, I never made this statement.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 Sophianic

  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 30 August 2002 - 10:04 AM

Originally Posted By Mangala

Sophianic you're taking your partisan relationship with capitalism too far.


Reasons? I'm only taking it as far as natural law allows me to take it. And that includes not forcing others to do anything against their will, provided they do not initate the use of force, coercion or fraud against others.

#65 Sophianic

  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 30 August 2002 - 10:31 AM

Originally Posted By Mangala

................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.


The unlawful use of force, Mangala. The unlawful use of force.

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 may not be their intention, but ... "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

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...


A weed by any other name is still a weed.

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?


The unlawful use of force, Mangala. The unlawful use of force.

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?


No one can make anyone else happy. Why do you find this so hard to understand? If the State were to be dismantled and put in its proper place (to protect individual rights), there would be an orgy of capitalistic excess as a result -- from all of the pent-up creative and productive energy being unlawfully suppressed by the State. The excesses, however, would soon be corrected by the market and by civil society. People, for the most part, would be happy. I say "for the most part" because there is no social system that could ever be perfect. Not even Capitalism. But that's not an argument against Capitalism.

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


I sense your exasperation here. I value my happiness. I value the happiness of those close to me. I value the happiness of friends and acquaintances. I value the happiness of strangers. In that order. Any attempt to reverse this order, or any attempt on the part of the State to force me to reverse this order, is immoral and illegal, and should not be tolerated.

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.


You're reading far more into this than I implied. Incidentally, a "benevolent" dictatorship of the few is still a dictatorship. We don't need social engineers; we need free markets and a civil society.

#66 kyle65uk

  • Guest, F@H Mmmm customised
  • 19 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 31 August 2002 - 12:08 AM

Mangala? Are you coming back, theres plenty of unanswered questions here about you system, some of mine are on the previous page now. Surely your friend has finished what he was writing now, and you can reply?

#67 Guest_Enter your name_*

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 31 August 2002 - 05:35 AM

I apologize, apologize, apologize. I am aware how rude it is for me to stop in the middle of the disussion I am hosting, but my believe it or not my friend was visiting colleges all last week in Washington State. I did not get a chance to ask him why he had not e-mailed the essay to me yet, but he did return Friday night. I will force him to send it to me so I can reply to the many questions asked since my last post.

#68 Mangala

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 31 August 2002 - 05:49 AM

That was me by the way(enter your name). I just recieved a new computer with a new keyboard. I'm going to hook up a different keyboard because this one's too sensitive to pressure. When I do that in within the next few days I will definitely reply to all the unanswered questions. Until then, keep thinking. ;)

- Mangala

P.S. Oh and by the way, once school starts, I will be writing less and less as my senior year in high school will proboably require a lot of work :o. I will write a very large reply to said questions before school starts.

#69 Mangala

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 31 August 2002 - 06:57 AM

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.


Mind, that's just immature. You can distort my words in any way you want to but that still doesn't change the point.

But we can both play that game Mind.

Maybe you haven't been cognizant of what you are saying:

"Government control of all taxes"

The government controls all aspects of the country. That's what the freaking constitution is, supreme law. When I say government control, I mean management, please do not take it as force. Democratic managment of corporations is the best way to provide for the people. That's all I see it as.

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

Hello??? Obviously that's what happens in any system.

"jobs can be given with extreme ignorance of people who cannot find jobs"

Why have such an unorganized system? When your goal is to provide labor for a company, you do not help people, you help the few people on the board of a company. When your goal is to provide work and production for all people, you help people fulfill their lives with something they want to do.

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

Good God Mind, this is what I mean by immature. "Make" could mean anything, your stereotype forces you to infer that as meaning "I, ruler of sociality, can make any law I want for all eternity and the people must follow." Democracy is democracy, no matter which system. And to help you understand, I will restate: "How am I tyrannical if I want a democracy that will serve the interests of the people, capitalist, socialist, and/or both?"

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

HMMM...WHAT DID I SAY RIGHT AFTER THAT MIND:

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, ;)).


Hey Mind, how about next time you write a post you don't twist people's words just to say I'm a megalomaniac?!? I obviously said it's just an opinion and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. End of story. I also support legalizing drugs(although I have never done any myself). Does that make me a freaking pothead? ANSWER THE QUESTION

"most of all you despise Capitalists"

I also don't like republicans, reactionaries, my mom sometimes, bad lighting, chocolate ice cream, and oh yea, uncomfortable bedding.

So sue me Mind, its just rhetoric used to get people to question their false sense of safety with capitalism. I hate capitalists just as much as I hate the other things I listed. As you can imagine, many of my close friends are capitalist, but its just some stupid thing we're arguing online about, please don't fear for your life.

"You spit on our way of life!"

I do. It's true. Lazy rich women strutting their stuff down Manhattan like they own the town and retiring every few days to the hamptons to "get out of the glum"(my friend's mom said that). Acting as If we're giving a chance to children who are born with a glass ceiling over their heads, and subconsiously formulating the lie that "the rich must work harder" in an effort to justify the system we're in. Yes. Our system is sub-par. I don't like it and I think we should change it. Plain and simple.

I don't twist words, I reply to them.


"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."

Oh please I do not abhor our system(at least some people are cared for and that's a plus, in a way), I simply think it could get better...for all of us. And valuing individual freedom is good to a point, but my friends essay ought to set that straight(hopefully, [blush] ).

I do argue with capitalists and I despise them. What's wrong with that? I do not like capitalists. Not you so much as Sophianic. Sophianic does not care about Timmy in the sweatshop. He cares about himself, and what Timmy can make for him.


As for Lazarus, I'll get to you soon enough, but it's late now for me. I will start replying where I left off.

- Mangala

#70 Sophianic

  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 31 August 2002 - 02:31 PM

Mangala said:
I do argue with capitalists and I despise them.  What's wrong with that?


Your hatred is misplaced. You despise inequities -- not capitalists who care about equitable relations.

I do not like capitalists.  Not you so much as Sophianic.  Sophianic does not care about Timmy in the sweatshop.


Ad hominem. Non sequitur. Provide an argument, please.

He cares about himself, and what Timmy can make for him.


Yes, I do care about myself, but not at the expense of others.

If Timmy wants to work, however young and precocious he may be, he should have the freedom to work. At no one's expense. That's the ideal scenario. In countries where there is little or no freedom, you will find little or no opportunity. Don't be surprised if sweatshops abound. To force children to work against their wills in these circumstances is unconscionable. But look at the root cause of said circumstances. Without individual freedom, there can be no prosperity.

#71 kyle65uk

  • Guest, F@H Mmmm customised
  • 19 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 31 August 2002 - 08:59 PM

I'll just wait patiently then, but remember little Timmy would probably do just the same to other people if he had a chance, with roles reversed, and I don't mean in revenge, just as a person if he'd had different start in life, although come to think of it and it if he was given the power now he probably would take revenge. im just pointing out that just because someone is poor now doesnt mean he is nessesarily a better person, although Im not saying you said he wouldn't.

#72 Mangala

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 02 September 2002 - 06:39 AM

Hello, many days ago I stopped writing posts to wait for my friend to write an essay. This essay pertains to the subject of Objectivism, which ties very closely in with Capitalism and Sophianic's version of "Individual Freedom." While Sophianic may throw around this phrase as if he is a humanitarian, he fails to make it clear that the individual freedom he refers to is that which is assumed for the priveleged. One such example:

[quote]If Timmy wants to work, however young and precocious he may be, he should have the freedom to work. At no one's expense. That's the ideal scenario. In countries where there is little or no freedom, you will find little or no opportunity. Don't be surprised if sweatshops abound. To force children to work against their wills in these circumstances is unconscionable. But look at the root cause of said circumstances. Without individual freedom, there can be no prosperity.[/quote]

[quote][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.[/quote]

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]

Obviously no one is going to make people work under a socialist system. I never said that there is some government policy that will be enforced that would say you have to work or you cannot work. A choice is a choice and in a socialist system if you want to get paid, you work, if you don't, you don't. Sounds a little like another system I know of...wait...I know this...oh yea! Capitalism. How would the policies of working if you wanted to work change under a socialist system Sopianic? I'm eager to know how you know just so much about our system's ins and outs that you know the government will instantly force people around like cattle.

The reason why I ask and Americans in general force(and I do mean force) Timmy not to work is because he needs to get an education first before he can decide whether he wants to choose work over school. Timmy can still work after school and on the weekends, but he should not be able to choose whatever he wants until he is fully mature. However if Sophianic's version of Individual freedom extends to whatever a teenager or child wants, I hope he will expand.

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

Because we have anti-sweatshop laws, why is this bad Sophianic?

[quote][quote]The problem is that I didn't say socialist reforms; I said social reforms.[/quote]
[quote]See this is what I get annoyed at! They are the same thing![/quote]
[quote]No, they are not. Not even remotely.[/quote]
[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.
[/quote][quote]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]

Sophianic, as the person introducing the subject of socialism and the system I have represented which has no precedent, I get to define terms introduced by the actual end message. But, for the sake of your incompetence and unwillingness to to argue with me on terms that can be agreed upon, and for the fact that even though if I had misled you in an understanding of the word "socialist" my new meaning should hold fast since my system is not actually defined anywhere, I have looked up the word and will define it.

so·cial adj. 4. Of or pertaining to public welfare

so·cial·ist n. 1. An advocate of socialism

so·cial·ism n. 1. Public collective ownership or control of the basic means of production, distribution, and exchange, with the avowed aim of operating for use rather than profit, and of assuring to each member of society an equitable share of goods, services, etc.

So in my analysis I suggest that a socialist reform is a reform that works to give to the people. A social reform is a reform that works to give to the people as well. If Sophianic disagrees with the given definition, this is the last time I'm arguing it, If you don't like me using social and socialist interchangably, I consider that as pertinent as arguing which font I should use to argue my point.

[quote][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![/quote]
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]

Are you saying there are almost no child agencies trying to help children in forced labor go to school because the government is trying to help them too much?

So by that logic there are just loads of money waiting to be spent on these kids who work for pennies by private charities, but the government stops them for some reason. And CEO's really want to help these children becuase no one is buying their toys and clothes(because as you said earlier, without government regulation(there is none in third world Asian sweatshops) people would never buy clothes made from near slave children) but they are powerless because the government is sicking its head in too far? Am I the only one who finds this a little absurd?

[quote](sarcasm's fun isn't it?)[/quote]

[quote]It's a poor substitute for a good argument.[/quote]

Oh c'mon Sophianic, I think I've held my argument pretty well together for a newcomer to the posts. Sarcasm works great if used correctly.

[quote]I think the second part may be the first actual formidable point you've made.[/quote]
[quote]The most formidable to you.[/quote]

hehe...well...obviously...what part of "I think"...

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

What do you mean whats wrong? Its because of that fact that you are stuck without the money to buy immortality treatments that being stuck in a menial job is bad, your supposed right of the rich comes at the expense of life for poor people.

By the way, in a capitalist system you can have universal health care and equal education rights. Does anyone contest that this would be fine in both systems?

[quote]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]

What?!?! I can tolerate the wages but education? Please tell me why rich people deserve better education for their children? How are children born to rich parents better in any way than to poor parents? Are children born with a rich gene that makes them better than poor people, and so they have a better right to a good life?

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

[quote]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![/quote]

Oh good god stop being so dramatic, I explained earlier that make is just a word I picked. Just for you guys I take back the words "make people happy" and use the words "give people happiness." No matter your prejudices, please understand that I do not want to force people to be happier. Sophianic is just using that one line in an attempt to accuse me of being the new Castro.

Anyway, now for what you've all been waiting for:

Freedom and Its Many Claimants

By Robert Groot


Objectivism is horrible.

In my opinion, it will live forever as the most jingoistic, self-contradictory philosophy ever. Here’s why:
“The concept of a right pertains only to action-specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men…Thus, for every individual, a right is a moral sanction of a positive-of his freedom to act on his own judgement, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As for his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.”

The Virtue of Selfishness pg. 110

Notice Rand’s first criterion, “freedom of action.” Now, when she explains this concept in the next sentence she writes, “It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.” This is a contradiction that comes across so casually that most people fail to notice it. The fallacy is that “freedom from action” is not necessarily achieved by “freedom from interference by other men.” For example, imagine an impoverished child is without an adequate education. The child desperately wants to move out of his neighborhood when he grows up, and not work solely at menial labor, for subsistence wages his entire life, however his family cannot afford to move to an area with luxuries such as certified teachers and safe school facilities, let alone obtain any higher education. In this case, the child is clearly limited in action. His birth to an unfortunate position has placed him in an environment that bars him from achieving his goals in life, and thus he is not free. Next imagine a wealthy man. This man already has a home, and is looking to buy a second. He also owns several highly priced luxury cars. He could easily pay for the child’s education, but he doesn’t want to. The question is: What action should a government take in this situation to insure the maximum amount of freedom? The answer is that, it being the government’s duty to secure and protect people’s freedoms, the government must redistribute wealth to provide an education for the impoverished child. The reasoning is that in exercising physical freedoms it sometimes becomes impossible for different people to exercise all the rights they want to at the same time. In the above example, the poor child wanted an education and the rich man wanted a second house. Allowing the rich man to get a second house would mean there would be no resources left to give the poor child an education. Similarly, granting the child an education would mean no resources left for the rich man to buy his second house with. The government can only grant physical freedom to one party, and, morally, it must choose the more basic right. In assessing these rights conflicts, and a multitude of other conflicts between rich and poor, the most basic, most necessary freedoms always fall on the side of the poor. The method is simple. A good example to go by is that before allowing citizens to obtain a second home, we must make sure that everyone has at least one home. This ability to obtain shelter is much more crucial to one’s well-being than the ability to have possession of multiple homes, and therefore must be provided for first. Yet, as a sign of how distorted Rand’s morality is, she allows the excessive freedom of some at the expense of the basic freedom of others, and then claims to uphold a free society. What objectivists need to understand is that coercion and restriction of rights does not simply include physically harming someone, and that many times denying someone a certain resource, such as an education, can be far more restrictive than taking superfluous property from the wealthy elite. All true advocates of freedom must take the stand that if removing excessive freedoms from some is to be judged as wrong, then setting up a social system that prevents many of its participants from ever achieving any measure of freedom in the first place must be considered an abomination. Basic rights come first, and that must be the scale on which we gauge our freedom.

END


And then there are his comments after reading the posts:

From what I can see of the discussion on this board, there is a basic misunderstanding. Many of the people upholding the capitalist point of view see the issue as a matter of “freedom vs. equality” or “individuality vs. the collective.” These viewpoints miff Mangala, who upholds the socialist perspective and believes that he actually upholds freedom, but finds no one is willing to debate his argument on its own terms, as a genuine attempt at achieving the maximum individual freedom possible for humanity. This discussion must go deeper, and discern the very nature of freedom before these assertions against socialism are allowed to stand. Before beginning, I’d like to give a few definitions to clarify my later points:


Free/adj 1: able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion or restraint;

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

\Free\, v. t. 1. To make free; to set at liberty; to rid of that which confines, limits, embarrasses, oppresses,

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

These general definitions lead us into the heart of the matter: which economic system is freer, capitalism or socialism? The immediate response to such a query is often, “Duh, its Capitalism! Everyone knows that. Socialist systems are all about oppressing people and taking away individual rights.” However, for the purpose of getting a true answer to this question, I’m sure everyone will be able to put aside existing conventions and hold an objective, unbiased view.
How could socialism possibly uphold freedom, you ask? First of all, consider the gross abuses against freedom present in capitalist society. These abuses may be subtle in many cases, but they are real and damaging. For example, in America today, millions of children are born into abject poverty, and failing educational institutions, especially in inner cities. In fact, in New York City, the reading and math skills of nearly half of all students are below the appropriate level for their age. In the poorest districts, these numbers reach as high as 90% below the appropriate level. For more information, check the following website:

http://www.manhattan...ml/cr_16.htm#05

How is it that no one considers the implication of this fact? That these students are confined and limited, and that their freedom is restricted, by their inadequate education. By assigning people at birth uncertified teachers and inadequate, often dangerous, facilities we restrict their right to a profession of their choosing, as they are forced into the lowest, most menial jobs. Not all of the poor are even this lucky. Now, if you were to ask the average person if it is morally permissible to imprison someone without just cause they would answer “no” without delay. However, we continue to foster circumstances where people are placed into prisons of circumstance, and locked securely in the position given to them at birth. The distorted morality that emerges from this system is that it is wrong to take freedoms away from an individual, yet it is perfectly acceptable to set up conditions that insure an individual will never be able to attain any measure of freedom in the first place! And despite this clear hypocrisy, capitalists blithely go on their way, speaking out against fascism, and advocating the dear principle of “liberty,” with little concern for their own acts of suppression. To a socialist, hearing a capitalist speak of “individual freedom” is obscene, however, most capitalists go into arguments with the preconceived notion that their system is the foundation of liberty. Still, in the scope of capitalist thought, this is only one absurdity among many.
To me, it would seem self-evident that a system based on freedom would secure basic rights before less necessary ones. A general guide would be to make sure everyone has a house before people start getting two houses. The first house is much more crucial to a person’s health and happiness than whatever extra enjoyment a wealthy businessman or entertainment star might get from a second, third, or fourth house.

-emergencies
what if an emergency is a rockslide, and thus permanent?
Just cause poverty is foreseeable doesn’t mean we drop the moral obligation


To start off, picture an oppressive government. Imagine that this government makes use of an armed police force to capture and imprison people at will. Clearly, the state of an individual who is imprisoned in this way is not one of freedom. He is confined to his cell, and restricted to only what his holders are willing to give him, and is therefore not free. This would lead us to conclude that a government that values freedom would not arbitrarily imprison its citizens. This example demonstrates the concept of “negative obligations”, or of moral obligations banning the use of physical force to harm others. The oppressive government violates these negative obligations by imprisoning the hapless citizen in the above example. Capitalists and socialists both agree on the existence of negative rights.
The situation becomes more complex in the following example. Imagine that an individual is in a cave with only one entrance. Next, imagine a rockslide, which covers the entrance to the cave, trapping this person inside. This person’s state is not much different from the man in the prison. He is confined to move only within the walls of the cave, and placed under the physical compulsion of the environment around him. He is clearly not free. It his here, however, that a disagreement emerges between socialists and a particular brand of capitalists, the objectivists, a philosophy to which, a number of board members seem to ascribe to. This disagreement is on the notion of “positive obligations” or the idea that people have obligations to help others in need. Simply put, socialists believe in them, objectivists don’t. Now here’s the question I will attempt to answer: Does anyone have an obligation to help this person trapped in a cave?



And he just ends it there, I'm sorry. I think he was trying to say at the end that an objectivist feels that if it's not beneficial to a person, no one should help a person trapped in a cave. I will ask him to continue, I do not know why he stopped there.

Extreme capitalists like Sophianic tie in very closely with objectivists. Sophianic's link to "Enron's lessons for capitalism" was even posted on the main objectivist website. I felt many times as if Sophianic was answering my questions with vague, limited, claims about the rights of an individual. Two such examples:

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

[quote]At the cost of violating individual rights.[/quote][/quote]


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

[quote]Not at the cost of violating individual rights.[/quote][/quote]

Individual rights only go so far. The rights of an individual expressed by objectivists impinge on the rights of others to a fair chance to a good life. How will you ever know if a little kid from Harlem's failing school's will become a leading physicist and do a lot of good for humanity if you never give him the chance he could have if his parents were rich? I understand the unacceptance of equal wages but dear god...do you really want to say some children deserve to go to more motivated schools than others? Or that some children deserve better health care than others? (As questioned in John Q)

Maybe you guys should know who I am to understand me. I am an American born under a democracy with the values that everyone should be provided for and given an equal chance to a good life. I do not want a system that restricts freedom in any way, I only want people(children especially) to get a chance to do what they want with their lives. To give them real professional freedom. Many schools teach "When you grow up you can be anything you want to be." But its not true, and that makes me very, very sad. :(


Think of it like a race. In capitalism, people start out in different places on the course and all want to get to the same finish line: Bill Gates Rich.

Socialism starts everyone out on the same starting line, and gives people a true chance to show who really is better at some things than others. The finish line is no longer the kind of money you only dream about, its the kind of work you only dream about. You guys talk about giving people a choice, but in capitalism there are so many choices you do not recieve, that poor and middle class people have very little choices, in the case of sweatshop workers, no real choice at all. And whats wrong is that these people are the majority, that even though we live in a democracy the people with the power are the upper class. 1 in 5 do not enjoy their jobs. Is this what we want?

#73 wall

  • Guest
  • 55 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 September 2002 - 04:40 PM

What?!?! I can tolerate the wages but education? Please tell me why rich people deserve better education for their children? How are children born to rich parents better in any way than to poor parents? Are children born with a rich gene that makes them better than poor people, and so they have a better right to a good life?


It has nothing to do with money - you get into college by applying, you write essays, show SAT/ACT scores, show previous grades that you earned in HS. If you get accepted to a college, no matter what financial status your at, there is a capitialist bank out there willing to take the risk of lending you the money you need to pay for it. Odds are that you will graduate and get a job and then you can pay the bank back and they earn their interest. Sure the super rich people have the advantage of not going in debt to pay for there tuition, because their parents will fork out the money. But that is an extreme minority of people.

The reason why more wealthy kids attend better schools then poor kids has really nothing to do with money. It has to do with personality's and personal beliefs. Poor people generally are re-active people (vs pro-active people) - they become poor because they don't act on anything until it becomes an absoulute need. This trait is subconsiously taught to their children as the way to handle life. They also generly have lower self esteem due to the fact that their parents are poor. Which means they don't value themselves as high, there not really infieriour - they just believe that they are. The personality difference between wealthy and poor people are night and day, I could go on for ever about why people fail, and why those peoples children fail - and vise versa. And it really has nothing to do with money, no one gets rich bassed on luck. Thats just a myth that poor people use as an excuse to be a lazy re-active lard ass.

If everyone was given a box of cryans when they were born, and told that their life was to use those cryans to draw a picture. Some kids would be handed measly 4 color cryan boxes while others recieved huge 128 color cryan boxes with built in sharpners on the back. But when it comes down to it, what counts is not the amount of cryans they have to work with, but what they do with the cryans they do have. The most amazing people in life are those who start out with hardly any cryans, maybee have 2 colors, but take those 2 cryans and draw some of the most amazing pictures the world has ever seen. They could look around, and notice how much of a dis-advantage they have started with when compared to others, and let that get them down, and lower their self esteem, and cause them to give up before they ever really started. Or they can ignore all that and just start drawing with all their heart.

Take Henry Ford as a good example, he came from a dirt poor familty and had only a pathedic 5th or 6th grade education to work with, but that didn't stop him from building a huge empire and inventing the most effective methods of mass production - ever. It was his poor roots that drove him to make sure his automobiles could be affordable for everyone - which is what inspired him to inventing the assymbly line, and make his product with such extreme cost efficiancy.

#74 wall

  • Guest
  • 55 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 September 2002 - 05:20 PM

The child desperately wants to move out of his neighborhood when he grows up, and not work solely at menial labor, for subsistence wages his entire life, however his family cannot afford to move to an area with luxuries such as certified teachers and safe school facilities, let alone obtain any higher education. In this case, the child is clearly limited in action. His birth to an unfortunate position has placed him in an environment that bars him from achieving his goals in life, and thus he is not free.


This is complete crap in my opinion. Humans aren't controled by circumstances, they create them. Physical limitations don't hold people back, mental limitations do.


Next imagine a wealthy man. This man already has a home, and is looking to buy a second. He also owns several highly priced luxury cars. He could easily pay for the child’s education, but he doesn’t want to.


Nor should he have to. This man has earned his money should be able to do whatever he pleases with it. Sure he might of made his money by methods that seem to be effortless, and it might appear that his riches were earned by pure luck. That however is never the case. Anyone whos good at anything does it with effortless ease - this is because the bulk of what they are doing is subconsious - vs being forfced to be done by consious thought or will power. The rich man made the choice to see himself as a rich and successfull person, the rich man never excepted failing as an option, the rich man never made a back up plan in case he did fail - the rich man doesn't fail because the rich man doesn't accept it as a possibility. It took Thomas Edison over 10,000 attempts before he created a working light bulb.... 10,000 attempts - think of that - how many would it of taken before you were to give up? Even if the money this man has was inheareted, at some point, it was earned by someone, and if that someone wanted to use that money to spoil his kids/grandkids and so on, than that is his choice to do so.

The question is: What action should a government take in this situation to insure the maximum amount of freedom? The answer is that, it being the government’s duty to secure and protect people’s freedoms, the government must redistribute wealth to provide an education for the impoverished child.


This is a load of crap - it would never work because if a government did function like this, there would be no reason for anyone to even earn a great amount of money - because it would just be taken from them. It takes a person and a dream to build an empire that can advance man kind. A government such as the one being described above would kill every dream that would of possibly seeded such an empire that would of been needed to create great advancment.



The biggest problem with this wealth distrobution being described above is that if it were to be put in to place NO ONE WOULD EVER CREATE ANY WEALTH TO BE DISTRIBUTED!!!!!

Why would anyone want to create wealth if the end result was that they end up no better off then a lazy person who did nothing?

You think the pro-active people of the world will just support the re-active people of the world out of good will?

It doesn't work like that, pro-active people do things bassed on want - they would not want to create wealth - so their lives would be spent in leasure.

Re-active people do things bassed on need - they will have no need to create wealth - so their lives would be spent in lazyness.

So who now is suppose to create the wealth that the government is going to distribute to everyone?


Simply put,
If you take away the capitalistic principles of society, then there is no wealth being created for the socialist government to distribute.

#75 kyle65uk

  • Guest, F@H Mmmm customised
  • 19 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 02 September 2002 - 06:06 PM

Yea, I keep making that point that people wont want to earn money if they know it will disadvantage them, since it will mean it will be taken away. People like to aspire, now there is a good chance of succeeding if you try hard enough, and at least a chance of becoming fabulously wealthy in your system Mangala there would be virtually no chance, I say virtually because you still havent provided the further details about being able to gain additional wealth - through shares, and how the transition would be done, its all in a previous post.

Also remember the world of poor people isn't all 'poor ol' Timmy's' for many, it is there own fault, and they would simply take advantage of your system. Sure out of a deprived area, we might get another Einstein, but then for each on of those, we will probably get another 10,000 or more finding a way to drain many times more resources than the additional geniuses do.

Finally, the main point of this debate shouldn't be to try and find problems with the exact wording or language used by others, but what they are actually saying. Prehaps it was deliberate, but:

Oh good god stop being so dramatic


does seem a bit hypocritical. And I do realise the Irony of commenting on language after saying how annoying it was getting.

#76 wall

  • Guest
  • 55 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 September 2002 - 06:11 PM

In fact, in New York City, the reading and math skills of nearly half of all students are below the appropriate level for their age. In the poorest districts, these numbers reach as high as 90% below the appropriate level.

How is it that no one considers the implication of this fact? That these students are confined and limited, and that their freedom is restricted, by their inadequate education. By assigning people at birth uncertified teachers and inadequate, often dangerous, facilities we restrict their right to a profession of their choosing, as they are forced into the lowest, most menial jobs. Not all of the poor are even this lucky.



Inadequate education, assigning people at birth uncertified teachers, dagerous facilities, etc Is NOT the cause of these kids failure.

The "system" doesn't fail anyone, people fail themselves.

Everyone is who they are bassed on who they believe they are.

They develope beliefs about who they are, in large part, due to their environment while growing up. For these students living in poverty, growing up in falure, they identify themselves with people who fail in life. They see themselves as someone who is suppose to fail. Not necessarly consiously, but subconsiouly. It would be out of character for them to do good in school, that would be inconsistent with their subconsous image of themselves, their for, subconsiously - they will not let that happen.

someone who sees themself as an "F" type student, one who is bad at math, will invarably find that their report card bears them out. They then have proof.

A young girl who has an image of herself as the sort of person nobody likes will find indeed that she is avoided at the school dance. She litterly invites rejection. Her woe-begone expression, her hang-dog manner, her over-axiousness to please, or perhaps her unconscious hostility towards those she anticipates will affront her - all act to drive away those whom she would attract.

a story out of the book "secrets to successful selling" - John D. Murphy

Was written in the 1950's - 5,000/year was a lot more back then

Elmer Wheeler had been called in as a sales consultant to a certain firm.  The sales manager called his attention to a very remarkable case.  A certain salesman always managed to make almost exactly $5,000 per year, regardless of the territory they assigned to him or the commision he was paid.  
Because this salesmand had done well in a rather small territory, he had been given a larger and much better one.  But the next year his commission amounted to almost the same as that he had made in the smaller one - $5,000.  The following year the company increased the commission paid to all salesman, but this salesman still managed to make only $5,000.  He was then assigned one of the company's poorest territories - and again made the usual $5,000.
Wheeler had a talk with this salesman and found that trouble was not in the territory but in the saleman's own valuation of himself.  He thought of himself as a $5,000-per-year man and as long as he held that concept of himself, outside condidtions didn't seem to matter much.
When he was assigned to a poor territory, he worked hard to make that $5,000.  When he was assigned a good territory, he found all sorts of excuses to coast when the $5,000 was in sight.


The point of this story, and the point im trying to make, is that it doesn't matter how good of teachers you put in these ghetto schools, it doesn't matter how good and safe the facilities are - as long as these kids are growing up in environments filled with falures, and identifying themselves with them - the majority of these people will become falures.

I know this is not a solution or an answer, but I feel as though your base for the reasoning behind falures of ghetto students was incorrect. To solve a problem you first must identify the source.

#77 wall

  • Guest
  • 55 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 September 2002 - 06:17 PM

kyle65uk: I apologize If I was repeating things you already went over, this is a huge post and Ill admit, I basicly just read the first and last posts, and a few tidbits in between.

#78 kyle65uk

  • Guest, F@H Mmmm customised
  • 19 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 02 September 2002 - 07:29 PM

No need to apologize, nice to have you joining this discussion. I was just agreeing with you really, I know I often just read the beginning and end of long posts like this, when I havn't been in from their start.

Just reading your other post, and again I agree, bad schools, are (often) bad schools because of the people there, therefore not the fault of someone elso who is rich. And following on from the failure mentality, and that of the sales bloke, many poor people would stay poor if they were given more opputunities, and money, since many would probably waste both.

#79 wall

  • Guest
  • 55 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 September 2002 - 07:32 PM

[/quote]Sure out of a deprived area, we might get another Einstein[quote]

An Einstein is an Einstein wherever they are born. No system will prevent one from emerging, nor would any system help them emerge.

I think you (being Mangala and others argueing for socialits) have way to much faith in the idea that a system of some sort can cure all of society's problems. Society is going to be faulted no matter what sort of system you implement. Systems dont' fail people, people fail all by themselves. No matter what system you implement, some people will fail and some people will succeed.

I understand your argument for trying to obtain the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. But the nature of life seems to be all about survival of the fittest.

#80 wall

  • Guest
  • 55 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 September 2002 - 07:50 PM

many poor people would stay poor if they were given more opputunities, and money, since many would probably waste both.


Exactly....

I once read that if the worlds wealth was equally divided among everyone that it would only take 10 years for it to go right back to being just as lop-sided as it was before. Im not sure how they came up with this, to me 10 years seems a bit quick, but eventually im sure it would all go right back to where it started. Therefore an "even" start wouldn't be enough for everyone to be financially equal, the government would have to always be taking from the rich and giving to the poor in order to keep it even. And this of course - as already stated - would result in no desire or motivation what so ever for anyone to earn money or become rich - and thus would result in no money to be evened out - and no production or advancement at all - It would be the dark ages all over again.

#81 kyle65uk

  • Guest, F@H Mmmm customised
  • 19 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 02 September 2002 - 07:59 PM

After all looking at how things are now is juts a snap shot of history, if you go back far enough, to when we were first evolving into humans, there was no wealth, and no one had an advantage through education, since humans were yet to develop a formal system of education, the fact that difference evolved from this point shows that different people acted differently, and at some stage some people worked harder, in order for the for runners of our current system to develop

#82 kyle65uk

  • Guest, F@H Mmmm customised
  • 19 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 02 September 2002 - 08:07 PM

Come to think of it, its interesting how there is a developed and undeveloped world, since the difference started long before the delevoped world 'discovered' other parts of the world, and so one would assume equel opportunities so it would appear to be logical to assume that they would have discovered 'us' at the same time. So all the problems in those countries aren't simply because of 'evil companies' not that they don't do some damage, just that many of the people in those countries do have a choice. Despite the fact that they are industrialised, they whole country isnt built up, and the people could go back to farming and agriculture if they wanted. The exeption is some of the child labour where if they do quit their family would starve, since their parents wont be employed because adults are too expensive to be employed, and there are too many other children around to replace them. However one must remember that the developed world wasn't always so, and managed to become developed without wealth being redistributed to us, we managed to build it up (as a whole) ourselves, so surely this could work on an individual level, and with other peoples. I know I'm generalising, and shortening a very complex topic region, but it just the principle I'm showing.

#83 Mangala

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 10 September 2002 - 03:45 AM

Wall, first I would like to say I am VERY dissappointed that you only read a little bit of the posts. After all, you have already made the mistake of arguing topics which have already been discussed:

[quote]It has nothing to do with money - you get into college by applying, you write essays, show SAT/ACT scores, show previous grades that you earned in HS. If you get accepted to a college, no matter what financial status your at, there is a capitialist bank out there willing to take the risk of lending you the money you need to pay for it. Odds are that you will graduate and get a job and then you can pay the bank back and they earn their interest. Sure the super rich people have the advantage of not going in debt to pay for there tuition, because their parents will fork out the money. But that is an extreme minority of people.[/quote]

As already said, 88% of the wealthy have children who are wealthy.


[quote]The reason why more wealthy kids attend better schools then poor kids has really nothing to do with money. It has to do with personality's and personal beliefs. Poor people generally are re-active people (vs pro-active people) - they become poor because they don't act on anything until it becomes an absoulute need. This trait is subconsiously taught to their children as the way to handle life. They also generly have lower self esteem due to the fact that their parents are poor. Which means they don't value themselves as high, there not really infieriour - they just believe that they are. The personality difference between wealthy and poor people are night and day, I could go on for ever about why people fail, and why those peoples children fail - and vise versa. And it really has nothing to do with money, no one gets rich bassed on luck. Thats just a myth that poor people use as an excuse to be a lazy re-active lard ass.

If everyone was given a box of cryans when they were born, and told that their life was to use those cryans to draw a picture. Some kids would be handed measly 4 color cryan boxes while others recieved huge 128 color cryan boxes with built in sharpners on the back. But when it comes down to it, what counts is not the amount of cryans they have to work with, but what they do with the cryans they do have. The most amazing people in life are those who start out with hardly any cryans, maybee have 2 colors, but take those 2 cryans and draw some of the most amazing pictures the world has ever seen. They could look around, and notice how much of a dis-advantage they have started with when compared to others, and let that get them down, and lower their self esteem, and cause them to give up before they ever really started. Or they can ignore all that and just start drawing with all their heart.

Take Henry Ford as a good example, he came from a dirt poor familty and had only a pathedic 5th or 6th grade education to work with, but that didn't stop him from building a huge empire and inventing the most effective methods of mass production - ever. It was his poor roots that drove him to make sure his automobiles could be affordable for everyone - which is what inspired him to inventing the assymbly line, and make his product with such extreme cost efficiancy. [/quote]




First of all, stop acting like poor children deserve to become poor adults. Just because in your theory children did not start out with the motivation to do their homework in school does not mean they are entitled to become as poor as their parents.

AND WHY WOULD YOU EVER BRING UP THE IDEA THAT POOR PEOPLE ARE LAZY?!?

Poor parents are lazy and so their children are lazy too? How does that justify keeping the poor poor? Why should generation after generation stay on the bottom just because they are "lazy?"

Poor people are not motivated in school and so they do not go to good colleges and get a good education. They also never learn about financial information (investing, spending, etc.). Poor people are only poor because they are uneducated!

Think about slavery! African Americans were enslaved for 100's of years and the only thing keeping them from being equal in America even today is education! When you dumb people down, they do not get to become "PROACTIVE!"

AND ON THE SUBJECT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS:

African Americans are the worst racial group financially. The average African American lives in some ghetto in one form or another. An ideal example if I ever saw one, is the African American racial block. Years of living in ghetto after ghetto in the same financial status is the perfect illustration of how if you are poor in this country, you stay poor, and almost no one helps you. Thank the void for socialist reforms such as national financial aid and state funded community schools. It is not only outrageous to call poor people poor because they are lazy, but it also helps no one to say poor people should stay poor becuase they are so lethargic, end of story.

On the crayon point, the Mona Lisa drawn with black and white will never compare to the real one.

Henry Ford on the other hand is 1 in a freaking million. How often do you see these little miracle stories? Is just every hard working American slaving away in a factory just too lazy to take advantage of the millions of opportunities out there? If these get rich quick schemes that are so plentiful and so easy to obtain, I would like to know where my proactive butt could get one of these! You present to me the kind of oppotunity Henry Ford found in some business model and I will gladly become the most proactive man alive!



[quote]This is complete crap in my opinion. Humans aren't controled by circumstances, they create them. Physical limitations don't hold people back, mental limitations do. [/quote]

Well that's complete crap if you will, how about slavery! How about feudalism! How about Communism! How about Fascism! How about Fundamentalism! How about anything else that keeps a human down by coercive forces?!? Oh sure, during apartheid anybody could vote out the dictatorial white minority right?! Just between the hours of 12:00:00 AM and 12:00:01 AM.

Anybody can hold anybody back, its common sense for god sakes man!

[quote]The biggest problem with this wealth distrobution being described above is that if it were to be put in to place NO ONE WOULD EVER CREATE ANY WEALTH TO BE DISTRIBUTED!!!!!

Why would anyone want to create wealth if the end result was that they end up no better off then a lazy person who did nothing?

You think the pro-active people of the world will just support the re-active people of the world out of good will?

It doesn't work like that, pro-active people do things bassed on want - they would not want to create wealth - so their lives would be spent in leasure.

Re-active people do things bassed on need - they will have no need to create wealth - so their lives would be spent in lazyness.

So who now is suppose to create the wealth that the government is going to distribute to everyone?


Simply put,
If you take away the capitalistic principles of society, then there is no wealth being created for the socialist government to distribute. [/quote]





WHAT!??!?! READ THE MY FREAKING POSTS FIRST! I HATE REPEATING! People who did not work would not get paid for doing nothing! And if you were lazy and did not do your job YOU WOULD BE FIRED! You are definitely jumping into this discussion OUT OF NOWHERE!

[quote]Finally, the main point of this debate shouldn't be to try and find problems with the exact wording or language used by others, but what they are actually saying. Prehaps it was deliberate, but:

QUOTE  
Oh good god stop being so dramatic


does seem a bit hypocritical. And I do realise the Irony of commenting on language after saying how annoying it was getting. [/quote]

Ooooh! Got me there! I am just so hypocritical! How is this wrong in any way? I said stop being so dramatic! I thought ve was being too dramatic. End Of Story.

[quote] Yea, I keep making that point that people wont want to earn money if they know it will disadvantage them, since it will mean it will be taken away. People like to aspire, now there is a good chance of succeeding if you try hard enough, and at least a chance of becoming fabulously wealthy in your system Mangala there would be virtually no chance, I say virtually because you still havent provided the further details about being able to gain additional wealth - through shares, and how the transition would be done, its all in a previous post.[/quote]

People like to aspire yes! But if you presented a toy in front of a child's face, would they grab at it? Obviously! Your entire perception of the human being under a socialist system is like that of the average Joe thinking about a real life AI. AI's to the average Joe would be selfish, cruel, happy and have some will to love. But as most of us knwo down here at imminst, is that AI's are only given their feelings and goals, their moods and lack thereof. A person living under a socialist country compared to capitlist joe would be disimilar as well. We present these pictures of the high life on TV, film, radio, and internet. Always there is the ideal that anybody could become the next millionaire. But we all know the chances of little Jamal, who just grew up in the South Bronx, are slim to none of becoming anything close to that. People are held back! When you are held back mentally by not learning enough you are held back just the same. If we do not give people a chance we will never see what a perosn is capable of!

Under a socialist system people would live under close to the same economic conditions. And YES, there would be no Bill Gates to look up to in his $40 million dollar home, and no Martha Stewart to dream about as well. People would not strive to become billionaires and millionaires because there would be no services that they would get because they recieved any more money than anybody else. Most services would be spent on the general public, with snazzy cars in the same price ranges, and computers that most people could afford. You would want to become a CEO not because you wanted more money, but because you ACTUALLY WANTED THE JOB. And it is my belief that the will to want to do the job is better off than the will to make more money.

[quote]Also remember the world of poor people isn't all 'poor ol' Timmy's' for many, it is there own fault, and they would simply take advantage of your system. Sure out of a deprived area, we might get another Einstein, but then for each on of those, we will probably get another 10,000 or more finding a way to drain many times more resources than the additional geniuses do.[/quote]

Right, poor people should stay poor because they are all stupid and lazy...yea, heard it.

About the 10,000 thing, you're not basing that on anything specific. Why would there be these 10,000 people draining the system for every poverty Einstein?

[quote]They develope beliefs about who they are, in large part, due to their environment while growing up. For these students living in poverty, growing up in falure, they identify themselves with people who fail in life. They see themselves as someone who is suppose to fail. Not necessarly consiously, but subconsiouly. It would be out of character for them to do good in school, that would be inconsistent with their subconsous image of themselves, their for, subconsiously - they will not let that happen.

someone who sees themself as an "F" type student, one who is bad at math, will invarably find that their report card bears them out. They then have proof.

A young girl who has an image of herself as the sort of person nobody likes will find indeed that she is avoided at the school dance. She litterly invites rejection. Her woe-begone expression, her hang-dog manner, her over-axiousness to please, or perhaps her unconscious hostility towards those she anticipates will affront her - all act to drive away those whom she would attract.[/quote]

[blink] WWWWhat?!? OK, so here's my understanding of your "analysis."

1. Poor children identify with their poor parents and so they do badly in school.

2....2....2...........wait...there is no two..

All your saying is that they grew up in a bad situation and so we should JUST LEAVE THEM THERE.

So since poor children live in a poverty stricken neighborhood, with bad schooling and bad societal influences, its their own fault that they become poor, even though they did nothing but commit the crime of growing up in a poverty stricken neighborhood. Thank you! I think poor little Sue who was never given a chance at a good education and now is studying to become a plumber feels all warm inside, even though, by your logic, if she had grown up in a rich neighborhood, she could have grown up to become something she really wanted to do, become a marine biologist! lol

Yup, because if you are in a cage, and know with all your might that you will get out, you will get out, because all people have innate psychic powers.

Look, I'm not saying motivating yourself does not help to get a little higher on the chain of command in a business, but I am saying education is everything. And if one child recieves a better education than another simply based on how much money the parents make, that makes me sick. Having more money does not make you better than someone else. It does not entitle you to a better right to life, a better right to education, and a better right to anything. Money is Money, not worth.

[quote]The point of this story, and the point im trying to make, is that it doesn't matter how good of teachers you put in these ghetto schools, it doesn't matter how good and safe the facilities are - as long as these kids are growing up in environments filled with falures, and identifying themselves with them - the majority of these people will become falures.

I know this is not a solution or an answer, but I feel as though your base for the reasoning behind falures of ghetto students was incorrect. To solve a problem you first must identify the source.[/quote]

Hello?!? Obviously I want socialism to get rid of these environments by increasing the amount of money a hard working person makes regardless of what profession he chooses. A CEO is not inherently better than a trash man. And if you think he is for some reason, ask youself this: Do I deserve immotality treaments more than you because I'm a doctor and you may be a lowly accountant?

[quote]kyle65uk: I apologize If I was repeating things you already went over, this is a huge post and Ill admit, I basicly just read the first and last posts, and a few tidbits in between. [/quote]

[blink]

[blink]

[blink]

O...my God.

Do not ever join into a thread when you have not read all the things previously discussed. I get it now. I get why your posts have annoyed me so much. You hardly read anything! I should just delete my replies and ask you to come back when you've read the whole thing! In fact, I will.


DO YOUR HOMEWORK: READ THIS ENTIRE POST BEFORE YOU WRITE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW.


Now, for the moment, I will reply to Kyle only. He has been faithful to this debate.

[quote] No need to apologize, nice to have you joining this discussion. I was just agreeing with you really, I know I often just read the beginning and end of long posts like this, when I havn't been in from their start.

Just reading your other post, and again I agree, bad schools, are (often) bad schools because of the people there, therefore not the fault of someone elso who is rich. And following on from the failure mentality, and that of the sales bloke, many poor people would stay poor if they were given more opputunities, and money, since many would probably waste both.[/quote]

:( Fine...I can take a hint. Sorry if I ask to much of people and ask them to talk about things that have not already been discussed.

I just hate it when people talk about stuff they don't even understand. And if you have not read the rest of this post, you cannot even argue against my system in the first place. Wall might call the system a dictatorship, or a second chance at the Soviet Union. I hate that and I refuse to repeat myself, rather, I will refer you to my preious post.

So we should not teach poor people financial education?

[quote]An Einstein is an Einstein wherever they are born. No system will prevent one from emerging, nor would any system help them emerge.[/quote]

Oh please, so when rich schools report that they have way higher test scores than poor schools, its just a coincidence, and rich schools just have naturally smarter kids??? Right...you just...don't get it Scott

[quote]I think you (being Mangala and others argueing for socialits) have way to much faith in the idea that a system of some sort can cure all of society's problems. Society is going to be faulted no matter what sort of system you implement. Systems dont' fail people, people fail all by themselves. No matter what system you implement, some people will fail and some people will succeed. [/quote]

Previous Post - Already talked about Utopia. Mind doing your research first before you claim the Earth is the center of the universe?

[quote]I understand your argument for trying to obtain the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. But the nature of life seems to be all about survival of the fittest. [/quote]

Great, so by your logic, lets base society on social darwinism, the greatest form of capitalism. All hail King Gates!

[quote]I once read that if the worlds wealth was equally divided among everyone that it would only take 10 years for it to go right back to being just as lop-sided as it was before. Im not sure how they came up with this, to me 10 years seems a bit quick, but eventually im sure it would all go right back to where it started. Therefore an "even" start wouldn't be enough for everyone to be financially equal, the government would have to always be taking from the rich and giving to the poor in order to keep it even. And this of course - as already stated - would result in no desire or motivation what so ever for anyone to earn money or become rich - and thus would result in no money to be evened out - and no production or advancement at all - It would be the dark ages all over again. [/quote]

First of all, that's the world's wealth, not American wealth...please stay on track here Wall, and read stuff we already said. God I hate having to do this.

There would be no rich in a socialist system so there would be no constant taking from anybody.

People also don't have to work for money, they can work for what they want to do. Because as we all know, there are tons of children out there who want to grow up to be Post Office workers. Isn't it great when dreams come true? ;)

[quote]After all looking at how things are now is juts a snap shot of history, if you go back far enough, to when we were first evolving into humans, there was no wealth, and no one had an advantage through education, since humans were yet to develop a formal system of education, the fact that difference evolved from this point shows that different people acted differently, and at some stage some people worked harder, in order for the for runners of our current system to develop[/quote]

Some people were stronger than others and so they took what they could get. Should we revert to strength economics then? OOO, OOO, if I hit Jonnie can I become leader of the tribe???

And by that logic blacks, Native Americans, Mexicans, and Latinos in America are naturally dumb, because most of them never get out of the system that lets them run free in the fields of suburbia. Right.

[quote]Come to think of it, its interesting how there is a developed and undeveloped world, since the difference started long before the delevoped world 'discovered' other parts of the world, and so one would assume equel opportunities so it would appear to be logical to assume that they would have discovered 'us' at the same time. So all the problems in those countries aren't simply because of 'evil companies' not that they don't do some damage, just that many of the people in those countries do have a choice. Despite the fact that they are industrialised, they whole country isnt built up, and the people could go back to farming and agriculture if they wanted.[/quote]

Right. Let's see, Pedro has two choices today, he could ( A ) Work at the city company for a measly 5 cents an hour, or ( B ) Quit his bothersome job and grow a farm right there in the open, unpolluted, rural fields that lie in his front yard. Hmmm....well working in the factory it is...because its just more fun to sew shirts for little boys in some industrialized country he can't even spell.

Come on, be realistic, if you could farm and sell your crops instead of working 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year, why would you ever want to work in the company. Industry totally trashes environments and people. You ahve not lifted these people up.

[quote] The exeption is some of the child labour where if they do quit their family would starve, since their parents wont be employed because adults are too expensive to be employed, and there are too many other children around to replace them. However one must remember that the developed world wasn't always so, and managed to become developed without wealth being redistributed to us, we managed to build it up (as a whole) ourselves, so surely this could work on an individual level, and with other peoples. I know I'm generalising, and shortening a very complex topic region, but it just the principle I'm showing. [/quote]

Child labor is horrible, I'm listening.

Great, I'm not saying equal wages should be standard for industrializing countries. I'm talking about America, now.


I don't like points that are covered with previous discussions, it slows the whole thing down. Please take some pride in your responses and do your homework. It can only help.

#84 wall

  • Guest
  • 55 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 September 2002 - 04:53 AM

Wow,

I just hate it when people talk about stuff they don't even understand. And if you have not read the rest of this post, you cannot even argue against my system in the first place. Wall might call the system a dictatorship, or a second chance at the Soviet Union. I hate that and I refuse to repeat myself, rather, I will refer you to my preious post.


I might call the system a dictatorship? you might take the time to read everything, but you sure don't comprehend what your reading.

Your whole argument of "wall didn't do his homework" that I "don't know what Im talking about" because I didn't read the whole post is a fallacy. Why don't you try argueing bassed on content - discrediting sources doesn't convince anyone.


First of all, stop acting like poor children deserve to become poor adults.

Right, poor people should stay poor because they are all stupid and lazy...yea, heard it.


When did I say anyone deserves anything - or should be anything... YOU are the one talking about what SHOULD be I am the one talking about WHAT IS.

As already said, 88% of the wealthy have children who are wealthy.

AND WHY WOULD YOU EVER BRING UP THE IDEA THAT POOR PEOPLE ARE LAZY?!?

Poor parents are lazy and so their children are lazy too? How does that justify keeping the poor poor? Why should generation after generation stay on the bottom just because they are "lazy?"


goes back to not comprehending my posts - you need to stop being so emotional and try using rational thought for a change.

Weathly people have wealthy kids because the kids assocaite themselves as being similar to their parents and the rest of the people around them when they grow up - wealthy kids grow up around wealthy affluent people - poor kids grow up around poor and lazy people - kids grow up seeing themselves similar to those around them and also conforming with them. this has NOTHING to do with what SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be - this is simply how it is.

WHAT!??!?! READ THE MY FREAKING POSTS FIRST! I HATE REPEATING! People who did not work would not get paid for doing nothing! And if you were lazy and did not do your job YOU WOULD BE FIRED! You are definitely jumping into this discussion OUT OF NOWHERE!


Did you understand anything that I said?

You say people will get paid - GREAT! my question was where is the money going to come from to pay these people?


QUOTE  
I think you (being Mangala and others argueing for socialits) have way to much faith in the idea that a system of some sort can cure all of society's problems. Society is going to be faulted no matter what sort of system you implement. Systems dont' fail people, people fail all by themselves. No matter what system you implement, some people will fail and some people will succeed.  


Previous Post - Already talked about Utopia. Mind doing your research first before you claim the Earth is the center of the universe?



good job avoiding that one. What does what I said have to do with Earth and the universe? You have a bad habbit of responding to arguments with fallacy's.


Do not ever join into a thread when you have not read all the things previously discussed. I get it now. I get why your posts have annoyed me so much. You hardly read anything! I should just delete my replies and ask you to come back when you've read the whole thing! In fact, I will.


My posts annoyed you because you can't handle them with legit arguments. You have resorted to many fallacy's within your long-winded reply. The structure of a forum does NOT require that I read the entire thread - I was replying to the ORIGINAL POST only.


QUOTE  
An Einstein is an Einstein wherever they are born. No system will prevent one from emerging, nor would any system help them emerge.


Oh please, so when rich schools report that they have way higher test scores than poor schools, its just a coincidence, and rich schools just have naturally smarter kids??? Right...you just...don't get it Scott


Should I go over this whole kids grow up to be like those around them thing again??


Very basic summary of my thoughts on the subject:

I feel I am who I am bassed on MY OWN decisions and NOT bassed on the circumstances around me - However I honestly feel that most humans are not like that - that most let the circumstances around them control who they are. That is a shame - I believe it is possible for anyone to break out of there environment and become a huge success as long as they believe they can and decide that they are - however I don't expect them to.

#85 wall

  • Guest
  • 55 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 September 2002 - 05:18 AM

You present to me the kind of oppotunity Henry Ford found in some business model and I will gladly become the most proactive man alive!


check out www.bplans.com - pick a sample plan - edit to your needs - and get moving..... All it takes to build Ford wealth is a dream, a plan, persistance, and of course faith.

Wouldn't building a wealth empire though, make you become your own enemy?

....

Or would you take 50,000/year or whatever you figure the average american salary should be and donate the rest to the poor? (yeeeahhh)

#86 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 11 September 2002 - 06:17 PM

MangalaIII: Did you have a chance to evaluate my suggestion from an earlier post?

...So my ideal world would give Lazarus and his community (or his state) the freedom to mold their meme, their economic policy, their social construct. MangalaIII (and his community or state)should also have the freedom to institute social changes they deem important. With hundreds or thousands of different memes operating across the globe we would be testing out all the variables. With the increasing interconnection I was talking about earlier, people in different corners of the globe would have good access to the different social constructs and be able to evaluate them.


Would this be an acceptable mode of operation?

#87 Guest_Enter your name_*

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 12 September 2002 - 08:17 PM

Well, before I add too many more comments, I need to ask you Mangala, are you actually, interested in considering whether you system would be realistic, and implimentable, or just expressing how much you think it would be nice if it was already working, and everything was therefore perfect in your opinion. I ask this because, many of my posting relating to the transition, and more specific details of your system. maybe it should be you who should be going back to re-read some of the previous posts, rather than continually telling Wall to. Posts such as:

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.



Afterall, it wouldn't have been such a bad thing to recap, with a post as long as this one, since dont see anything wrong with being hypocritical, or sarcastic at an every increasing rate. And as far as dissapointment goes, Im dissapointed that you've started going down this route with you argument, which was upto then being reasonably civilised. You may feel strongly about this topic, but then we all do, or we wouldn't be posting here, you can make you point without getting over excited. Anyway, enough complaining, I hope your arguement will return to form soon.

Oh and on the crayon point, yes the poor kids mona lisa wouldn't look so go (althugh no ones would since it was painted not drawn) but he would do some good crayon drawings, sell them, and then go buy some paints, if he was really motivated.

Following from the education point, Equal schools, doesn't guarentee equel people, since I know plenty of people who've got into good schools, and then just left at 16 anyway. After all, many schools wern't made unequal, it was only the people who went to them that made them become 'bad schools'. While there is some continuation in attitude from people around you, It isn't that hard to not just go along with whats already happening, I might be in a reasonable school, but I dont work at exactly the same level as everyone else there, my achievement is not hindered greatly nor promoted greatly just on the actions of others. Most people have some sort of initiative of their own.

Also, how do you feel about enterance exams to get into secondary schools, like those used for Grammar schools in England? Splitting the less and more able students, so they can be taught separatly, so the teaching method is more specific to the people, and with that streaming inside schools, based on performance in end of year exams after the first or second year.

#88 kyle65uk

  • Guest, F@H Mmmm customised
  • 19 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 12 September 2002 - 08:23 PM

That was me above, I accidently posted, before I had finished the order of the points, so I've reposted it correctly:

Well, before I add too many more comments, I need to ask you Mangala, are you actually, interested in considering whether you system would be realistic, and implimentable, or just expressing how much you think it would be nice if it was already working, and everything was therefore perfect in your opinion. I ask this because, many of my posting relating to the transition, and more specific details of your system. maybe it should be you who should be going back to re-read some of the previous posts, rather than continually telling Wall to. Afterall, it wouldn't have been such a bad thing to recap, with a post as long as this one, since dont see anything wrong with being hypocritical, or sarcastic at an every increasing rate. And as far as dissapointment goes, Im dissapointed that you've started going down this route with you argument, which was upto then being reasonably civilised. You may feel strongly about this topic, but then we all do, or we wouldn't be posting here, you can make you point without getting over excited. Anyway, enough complaining, I hope your arguement will return to form soon.

Heres one post of mine from a few pages back now, thats been left:

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.



Oh and on the crayon point, yes the poor kids mona lisa wouldn't look so go (althugh no ones would since it was painted not drawn) but he would do some good crayon drawings, sell them, and then go buy some paints, if he was really motivated.

Following from the education point, Equal schools, doesn't guarentee equel people, since I know plenty of people who've got into good schools, and then just left at 16 anyway. After all, many schools wern't made unequal, it was only the people who went to them that made them become 'bad schools'. While there is some continuation in attitude from people around you, It isn't that hard to not just go along with whats already happening, I might be in a reasonable school, but I dont work at exactly the same level as everyone else there, my achievement is not hindered greatly nor promoted greatly just on the actions of others. Most people have some sort of initiative of their own.

Also, how do you feel about enterance exams to get into secondary schools, like those used for Grammar schools in England? Splitting the less and more able students, so they can be taught separatly, so the teaching method is more specific to the people, and with that streaming inside schools, based on performance in end of year exams after the first or second year.

#89 kyle65uk

  • Guest, F@H Mmmm customised
  • 19 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 12 September 2002 - 09:06 PM

Finally, I think you were reading too far into my post about the developed/developing world, I obveously wasn't refering to killing someone to 'rise in society' and if I had endless time, I could probably think of a perfect situation to demonstrate my point with no possible opening for a quick mis-quote, and a sarcastic comment, before moving on. But I don't, so rather than worrying about the exact wording, concentrate on the principle. What I was attempting to demonstrate was that people will act differently, even when they started off the same. The people in many developed countries were living differently before they were 'discovered' Note, I didn't say, or imply they were dumber, after all htey have selected a livestyle that fitted them. The thing is, we look at them in a small hut, and think 'oh poor person, look at how they've been suppressed' when many of them like to livein a certain way. And just in case, I think I'll have to state, Im not refering to shanty towns, which is obveously not part of their culture.

Right. Let's see, Pedro has two choices today, he could ( A ) Work at the city company for a measly 5 cents an hour, or ( B ) Quit his bothersome job and grow a farm right there in the open, unpolluted, rural fields that lie in his front yard. Hmmm....well working in the factory it is...because its just more fun to sew shirts for little boys in some industrialized country he can't even spell.

Come on, be realistic, if you could farm and sell your crops instead of working 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year, why would you ever want to work in the company


In many cases Pedro moved to the city, to get work because farming wasn't working, and 5 cents is more than what he would other wise earn. And since you are sarcastic about rural fields, are you trying to tell me that the whole of taiwan, thailand are entirly solid concrete? There is rural farmland, not on his backdoor since he's moved to the city, but probably where he came from. Also while 5 cents isn't much, it can buy more there, and finally, how many hours do you think farmers work? He'd still be up early, and I some how doubt the cows would milk themselves each weekend, or while he took a vacation, farming is also a full time job. And also since you imply that he cant leave, whats stopping him, except that he would earn even less going back to farming? You still seem to be saying he's a slave and would leave if he could only be free.

#90 Guest_Enter your name_*

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 14 September 2002 - 09:45 AM

Anyone who condones any system other than capitalism is, basically, just plain fruity.
It just doesnt work. Period. Ever. In history.

Give any government any power over the means of production, and you are giving everything you hold sacred as an individual away. Freely.

Yeah, yeah. We have all seen (or read) Oliver Twist.
We also have seen (or read) 1984.

The workers can always band together into unions (which they have) as long as government has no social control.
Otherwise, unions mean diddly squat, as we see in post-modern societies.

A monopoly is the surest guarantee of its own downfall.
All hope remains in the hands of the proles.

Capitalism is a system, as much of a system as ecological systems. Any hegemony will inevitably result in a "leming endeavour". The result will be a repeat of small industrious multitudes giving way to three large corporations, leading to a single conglomerate, leading to a total downfall resulting in a repeat of small industrious multidudes....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users