508 replies to this topic

[John_Galt]

Just some comments on the capitalist versus socialist debate.

The root philosophy of socialism is based on the wish that the world would operate according to 'wishes'. Socialists seem to believe that a politician could simply 'wave his hand' and loads and loads of goods and services will appear out of no-where.

But socialists are actually rebelling against reality, because the world does NOT operate according to wishes. Reality is a struggle.. 'Wealth' can be thought of as the amount of available goods and services. But the available goods and services of a society are strictly limited by the amount of available materials, the amount of available time, the amount of 'intelligence' possessed by the components of society and the underlying 'laws of nature' according to which the world works. 'Money' is device which capitalists have invented to try to reflect these underlying OBJECTIVE factors. It's important to understand that wealth is not a human fiction - but something which is completely objective. *available time*, *available materials* *intelligence* and *laws of nature* are all completely objective factors which could in principle be measured. 'Money' is a human invention , but the capitalist basis of money is that it is supposed to REPRESENT available wealth. So in capitalism, money is supposed to be a MEASUREMENT of wealth, which is actually completely objective.

When a socialist says that politicians should make goods and services available to all, he is really demanding that goods and services be conjured out of thin air. But as explained, the world does not operate according to wishes. Given that goods and services have to come from somewhere, the only way a politician can guarantee goods and services to the 'have-nots' is to take it by force from the 'haves'. There is no way around this. Socialism REQUIRES tyranny. It requires that people lose some of their freedom.

But reality does not operate according to what politicians want. Wealth depends on the underlying objective factors explained in the first paragraph. When a politician tries to re-distribute money, all he does is 'degrade' the value of money. Remember that in capitalism, money is a MEASUREMENT of OBJECTIVE WEALTH. In Socialism, money ceases to be an accurate measurement - the politician is trying to 'conjure' wealth out of no-where by wishing for it, but the world does not operate according to wishes.

Let's come back to the nature of wealth. What creates wealth? The answer is that wealth is created through the work of an intelligent mind, applying knowledge to shape the material world. A person has to have *intelligence* (to successfully do or make something useful) he has to have *time* (in order to carry out his labour), he has to have *material resources* (to act in the world) and he works according to *laws of nature* (which restrict and determine the sorts of things he can do and how he does it). When a politician passes a law interfering with a person's work (which as I explained in the last paragraph socialism unavoidably requires in order to re-distribute wealth), the politician is robbing a person of some of his freedom and thus restricting his ability to create wealth. In other words the politician has actually REDUCED the total amount of wealth in existence. Wealth is something which has to be *MADE* by the work of an intelligent mind. It's not something which is a fixed quantity just sitting out there waiting to 'distributed'.

The real world is a place with limitations and limitations require some rules of interaction. There are only two possibilities available to human society. The first possibility is that some sort of 'medium of exchange' has to be invented which accurately MEASURES the total amount of OBJECTIVE WEALTH (available goods and services) according to the current limitations of reality. Then people may freely work to create wealth and trade value for value peacefully through this medium of exchange. Obviously though, the process requires 'rules of interaction' (i.e. laws) which ensure that money is a true measure of wealth. These are the laws of a society which is based on 'laissez-faire capitalism'. Fascists! yell the socialists. Corporate monsters exploiting the workers! cry the socialists. Why must I be forced to obey all these silly rules! I have to go to work at 8am every day and stay there upon 5pm. I have to do what my boss says! The capitalists are trying to rule the world! All complete nonsense of course. A society based on Capitalism simply reflects the underlying limitations of reality itself. It's the ONLY way to do so peacefully.

The alternative is *socialism. Reality is what it is. The world has limitations. It does not operate according to wishes. Wealth cannot be conjured out of thin air. But socialists want to blind themselves to reality and try to pretend that wealth can be produced by wishing for it. They want something for nothing but in the real world there's only one way that this can possibility happen: by stealing something from other people. By forcefully taking what others have worked for. And this really is what socialism is all about. Socialists use every excuse in the book to try to evade the fact that socialism only works through the barrel of a gun. They say that politicians are working 'for the social good'. But who determines what 'social good' really is? In reality, politicians line their own pockets with money which is taken from people at the barrel of a gun (it's called 'taxation' and in the U.S some IRS agents do literally carry guns). The remainder of the stolen loot is then 're-distributed' - which - socialists reassure us - is done to 'help the less fortunate'. In fact, the recipients of the loot are mostly the people who have the most influence with the politicians - the people who are the best at 'sucking up', who are the best at 'offering favours', who are the best at manipulating and conning. Ironically in the U.S, it's 'big business' who plays this game the best. This is socialism.

What of 'Friendly A.I' and the 'Singularity'? Is it true that an S.A.I can bring about the world the socialists yearn for - a world in which goods and services are produced simply by 'wishing'? No! For even an S.A.I cannot evade reality. All entities must operate within reality and are subject to the limitations of reality. An S.A.I will indeed be able to generate enormous amounts of wealth, but this will not occur through 'wishes'. An S.A.I may have access to a great deal of *material resources* (for instance it may discover an easy means of transporting materials from elsewhere in the solar system) but at any given time the range of material resources controlled will still be finite. An S.A.I may have a great deal of *time* - since it may be able to think far faster than ordinary humans and thus enjoy a speed up existence. But it is still limited by the speed of it's hardware. An S.A.I may have a great deal more *intelligence* than ordinary humans, but no finite being can be omnipotent, and an S.A.I will still make mistakes no matter how super-human it's abilities. Finally the S.A.I may be able to manipulate some *laws of nature* but it would have had to have discovered still deeper laws to have done so - and these deeper laws will still impose limitations. With the tremendous powers of it's mind an S.A.I could indeed generate tremendous wealth - but not through 'wishing' but only through hard work - and subject to the limitations of it's available *materials*, *time*, *intelligence* and *laws of nature*. These limitations will define 'wealth' and require 'money', just as they do in our ordinary pre-Singularity existence. Far from enabling a socialist society, an S.A.I will in fact provide the most graphic demonstration of the truth of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism.

[Bruce Klein]

Welcome John... Excellent Post, nice to have you.

[Mangala]

My deepest apologies.

I have become the worst kind of moderator. I have become a person who has attacked my debaters with anger and unrest. I hope that now after I've taken a much need leave from this discussion that I can debate sensibly and with logic.

I will also stop writing at times from 1-4 am lol

Responses:

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

Well England and France are capitalist socialist hybrids to a high degree. Surely these countries work fine.

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.

Well the US government owns and runs the postal office and that works fine. Governments can run things very well. We have seen this in the past and the future. If you do not trust your government to run the factories that sell your clothes, food, and water, why should you let it control your everyday laws? When it comes to companies vs. government, government laws always control rule out. If you trust a CEO more than anybody elected by your people, what do you value in terms of government?

Oliver Twist is an extreme version of capitalism gone worng. We do not live in such a society. It does not pertain to the discussion much.

1984 is an extreme version of Stalinism. We do not live in such a society. It does not pertain to the discussion much.

A monopoly is the surest guarantee of its own downfall.

I do not think so. JP Morgan and Microsoft do not seem like they are about to fall anytime soon.

It is only the government that has prevented companies from growing too powerful in these times anyway.

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....

Do you mean this will happen in our society, or this will happen in a socialist society?

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.

Well that depends on what you mean by luck. If you mean the luck of being born into a rich family, yes, your wealth is determined by that luck. But if you mean the kind of luck like the amount of investors investing in your stock on a certain day, then no, luck does not necessarily deteremine your wealth as much as what business move you made last week.

Poor people are not naturally lazy.

Middle class people should not call lower class people lazy because the lower class children learn from their lower class parents.

It is also very rare to see poor people succeed but it is very common to see rich people succeed. If all people are created equal, why should it be harder for the poor and easier for the rich?

[John_Galt]

Hi bj and mangala!

I'm always amazed that there are still people who think that any form of socialism is a good idea.

The basic idea that having someone run your life for you will make you happy is totally discredited. Happiness comes when humans are free to STRIVE to improve their own lives. It's the *journey* NOT *the destination*. You could have a magic genie which granted you wishes until you were blue in the face but it wouldn't raise your happiness one iota. Like I said, happiness comes when people work to overcome challenges through their own individual efforts.

Socialism is the idea that if someone else gives us a whole bunch of stuff and runs our lives for us we will be happy. But it doesn't work. Simply being given a whole lot of material things does not produce happiness. I've been on welfare and believe me, it didn't make me happy. None of the people I know on government handouts are really happy about it. Quite the contrary. It's better to free and poor than live as a slave.

Those who are poor should work to produce wealth for themselves. Or, if they can't do so (because they have suffered some misfortune) then it is the responsibility of their parents and friends to look after them. Or failing that, private charity. The government has no business living people's lives for them and government hand-outs to the poor do NOT make them happy. What makes a person happy is succeding through one's OWN EFFORT.

[John_Galt]

MANGALA: *Well England and France are capitalist socialist hybrids to a high degree. Surely these countries work fine.*

JOHN GALT: Definitely not! The French economy in particular has a far higher rate of unemployment and a lower standard of living than the U.S. There is more poverty under socialism. The English economy is actually quite free-market now.


MANGALA: *Well the US government owns and runs the postal office and that works fine. Governments can run things very well. We have seen this in the past and the future. If you do not trust your government to run the factories that sell your clothes, food, and water, why should you let it control your everyday laws? When it comes to companies vs. government, government laws always control rule out. If you trust a CEO more than anybody elected by your people, what do you value in terms of government?*

JOHN GALT: Well, we need a government to make laws - or else the result would be anarchy. There can be no form of capitalism when there is anarchy. But there's a big difference between a government limited to making laws to protect individual rights, and a government which is trying to run people's lives for them. Your statement that: 'Governments can run things very well' simply isn't true. The US postal office wastes huge sums of money and the quality of the service is low.


MANGALA: *I do not think so. JP Morgan and Microsoft do not seem like they are about to fall anytime soon.

It is only the government that has prevented companies from growing too powerful in these times anyway*

JOHN GALT: JP Morgan and Microsoft are NOT monoplies. They are 'market leaders'. There's a big difference. A 'monopoly' cannot occcur in true capitalism because the government always acts to protect individual rights. It is under socialism that you get monoplies. A 'monopoly' is an organization providing goods and services which uses 'strong arm' tactics to prevent any one else competing with it and offers consumers no choice in what they can buy. There's a name for such an organization: It's called 'The Government'.

MANGALA: *Well that depends on what you mean by luck. If you mean the luck of being born into a rich family, yes, your wealth is determined by that luck. But if you mean the kind of luck like the amount of investors investing in your stock on a certain day, then no, luck does not necessarily deteremine your wealth as much as what business move you made last week.

Poor people are not naturally lazy.

Middle class people should not call lower class people lazy because the lower class children learn from their lower class parents.

It is also very rare to see poor people succeed but it is very common to see rich people succeed. If all people are created equal, why should it be harder for the poor and easier for the rich?*

JOHN GALT: Your statements are totally un-true. There are no 'fixed classes' and under capitalism people move from lower class to upper class (and visa versa) all the time.

[Sophianic]

Just some comments on the capitalist versus socialist debate.

The root philosophy of socialism is based on the wish that the world would operate according to 'wishes'.  Socialists seem to believe that a politician could simply 'wave his hand' and loads and loads of goods and services will appear out of no-where.

Welcome to the debate. It's nice to see another voice of reason among us. I would encourage you to give the polish to this piece and submit it to the monthly writer's competition with a meatier take on the AI Singularity (more aptly named the Sysop Scenario a la Mitchell Howe). I think BJ would agree that it has the potential to be a prize-winning entry.

As for capitalism and socialism, I think most people on this forum already know my views on the topic. I must agree with your assessment that socialism is based on a sense of entitlement (combined with a tolerance of altruism: a blend of sacrifice and benevolence), and it is this combination more than any other factor that keeps any given populace under the thrall of government coercion.

[Mangala]

Well that's quite interesting that you have decided to come back after so long sophianic. Were you waiting for someone like me to come back and debate with, or were you waiting for another capitalist to come by and support your opinion of the ways things are going?

Hello Mr. Galt, nice to meet you,

[quote]Socialists seem to believe that a politician could simply 'wave his hand' and loads and loads of goods and services will appear out of no-where. [/quote]

This is simply not true. If I socialists believe wishes could come true, we'd be ten times as adamant about changing our current system of government (not to mention insane).

[quote]But the available goods and services of a society are strictly limited by the amount of available materials, the amount of available time, the amount of 'intelligence' possessed by the components of society and the underlying 'laws of nature' according to which the world works. 'Money' is device which capitalists have invented to try to reflect these underlying OBJECTIVE factors. It's important to understand that wealth is not a human fiction - but something which is completely objective. *available time*, *available materials* *intelligence* and *laws of nature* are all completely objective factors which could in principle be measured. 'Money' is a human invention , but the capitalist basis of money is that it is supposed to REPRESENT available wealth. So in capitalism, money is supposed to be a MEASUREMENT of wealth, which is actually completely objective.[/quote]

This is a given.

[quote]When a socialist says that politicians should make goods and services available to all, he is really demanding that goods and services be conjured out of thin air.But as explained, the world does not operate according to wishes. Given that goods and services have to come from somewhere, the only way a politician can guarantee goods and services to the 'have-nots' is to take it by force from the 'haves'. There is no way around this. [/quote]

Re-distribution is not re-creation. The entire point of this system is to give an equal and fair chance to all medical care, schooling, and whatever a job anyone might want to pursue. It is my belief that people are not paid according to their total out production to society. If it were, then you capitalists would have a case. But most CEO's could be replaced with computers within about 20 years. They do not actually deserve the large amounts of money they receive every year because they do not contribute in turn the amount of production to the human ecology that say, a trash man does. A trash man works hard every day and does all the dirty work that nobody else will do. But he is paid a small amount of money because the job he works in is a job that does not require much skill in any field. Skills themselves are acquired at certain schools. Most trash men never were encouraged much to attend college or not drop out of high school. That is probably do to the fact that both the high school and community he lived in were places not funded much by more than the poor people paying the taxes. As such, the trash man was hindered from acquiring skills from the beginning.

A lawyer on the other hand usually comes from a high school that was supported by a lot of money. A private school or a rich town "public" school. He was fostered to acquire skills and attend a good college and to go on and get a good job like becoming a lawyer. If these two people were switched from homes, it is more likely that they will have lived with each other’s lives because of the fact that 88% of the upper class's children become some part of the upper class themselves. It is not logical to assume that the upper class's children just happen to carry traits that make them naturally more skilled and intelligent than any of the lower classes.

Like I said before, if these two people were created equal, why should one have more of a chance to succeed?

It is often the saying of capitalists that capitalism is like a race where everyone starts at the same starting line, and socialism is a race where everyone has the same finish line. This however is the total opposite. Under our current form of capitalist-socialist hybrid rich children start out at a place closer to the finish line while the poor starting place lags behind. Under socialism everyone is given the best education we can successfully give to everyone and allowed to truly show if they are more intelligent, more charismatic, more talented or athletic than anyone else. The true fair race is socialism.

Thus, education needs reform even if we were not to give an equal chance to everyone anyway. There is no way to tell who is better than anyone else because some people are given an advantage. I'm not just griping about this because I'm some poor bum, I'm in a very affluent high school and will probably be one of the ones that will succeed. My placement in my school is about the middle 50% and yet some of my prospective colleges and universities are Ivy League. Is this discrepancy fair relative to some poor school in the inner city?

[quote]In Socialism, money ceases to be an accurate measurement - the politician is trying to 'conjure' wealth out of no-where by wishing for it, but the world does not operate according to wishes.[/quote]

You make these assumptions without logical reasoning why anyone would want to help poor people by developing a system based on wishes. We all know wishes do not always come true, especially for young sweatshop workers.

[quote]Socialism REQUIRES tyranny. It requires that people lose some of their freedom.[/quote]

Communism requires tyranny. Socialism requires that people lose what freedoms?

[quote]But reality does not operate according to what politicians want. Wealth depends on the underlying objective factors explained in the first paragraph. When a politician tries to re-distribute money, all he does is 'degrade' the value of money. Remember that in capitalism, money is a MEASUREMENT of OBJECTIVE WEALTH. In Socialism, money ceases to be an accurate measurement - the politician is trying to 'conjure' wealth out of no-where by wishing for it, but the world does not operate according to wishes.[/quote]

The value of money is not degraded when it is redistributed because we have no said system of determining who gets what under capitalism. You do not mess up any balance by paying the secretary ten times more than the CEO because there is no science to salary choice at all. To say that a CEO needs to receive more money than his inferiors in order to keep the value of money from degrading is totally untrue. At the end of the day the end profit is distributed by the leader of the company. It is no wonder the distributor gets the most of the money. Under socialism, giving an equal amount of money to everyone will not make everyone work equally hard either. But those who want to be in that position, who want to actually be secretary and lawyer and trash man and scientist and lobbyist and doctor and plumber can be who they want to be. All jobs that do not want doing will be listed as "Menial Jobs" which I have explained in function in previous posts many times.

Under socialism money is no longer represented as a show of who deserves more things than another, it is simply becomes an endnote, a thing that can be spent just the same under capitalism, only it does not determine if your grandma is going to die today, or if you can eat today, or if your children can stay in the same school district because the money to pay for the house is too high to pay anymore.

Money should not be an indicator of rights, but in our system it is. A right to life, a right to happiness, and a right to power.

[quote]When a politician passes a law interfering with a person's work (which as I explained in the last paragraph socialism unavoidably requires in order to re-distribute wealth), the politician is robbing a person of some of his freedom and thus restricting his ability to create wealth. In other words the politician has actually REDUCED the total amount of wealth in existence. Wealth is something which has to be *MADE* by the work of an intelligent mind. It's not something which is a fixed quantity just sitting out there waiting to 'distributed'.
[/quote]


Wealth is still *Made* by people all over the country whether under capitalism or socialism. When a law is made to restrict a person's work, you are right; it does interfere with the wealth making process. But socialism does not make any laws that restrict a person from working. A socialist system gives freedom to people to be able to pick the kind of job they want to do regardless of whether a person was born into a "bad" neighborhood or a "good" neighborhood by giving everyone an equal chance at education.

[quote]There are only two possibilities available to human society.[/quote]

You named the first, what is the second?

[quote]Corporate monsters exploiting the workers! cry the socialists. Why must I be forced to obey all these silly rules! I have to go to work at 8am every day and stay there upon 5pm. I have to do what my boss says! The capitalists are trying to rule the world! All complete nonsense of course. A society based on Capitalism simply reflects the underlying limitations of reality itself. It's the ONLY way to do so peacefully.[/quote]

What socialist rationally says I want money without work? So are you saying that there is in fact only one way to work human society? Capitalism? Capitalism limits more limitations so that CEO's can still make more money regardless of how much time they actually spent working on any given day. We have no value system to determine who gets more money than others so why should you defend people who make more money?

[quote]Socialists use every excuse in the book to try to evade the fact that socialism only works through the barrel of a gun.[/quote]

Since this system has never been implemented socialism as we know seems very harsh and authoritarian. Communism and Socialism are two different things. Even if they were the same, no one is saying the Soviet Union was Disney world or even OK in any respect. It gave no democracy to its people; it tried to do everything in its power to make the whole country work like a machine. People are not machines, they have feelings and emotions. They need more than to be told what to do with their lives because in fact, it is their life. People have more choice in America than in the Soviet Union, or in Feudal England, or in militaristic Japan, but I do not think that enough choice is given to enough people. Capitalism lets some people choose what they want to do with their lives while letting others only choose jobs that are "menial."

[quote]They say that politicians are working 'for the social good'. But who determines what 'social good' really is? In reality, politicians line their own pockets with money which is taken from people at the barrel of a gun (it's called 'taxation' and in the U.S some IRS agents do literally carry guns). [/quote]

I never said all politicians are working for social good. Neither that they necessarily know what is good for society. We have a democracy for a reason. That reason is to make sure that the people in charge serve the will of the majority to estimate what they think the people who elected them think is good for society. If the will of the majority is not being served we elect new people in charge. If for some reason democracy has failed in giving you the type of government you want you are either in the minority or not in a democracy. Even if you are in the minority the bill of rights serves to make sure that you are able to still exist in some happiness without having your way totally. Do you really think the government is taking too much money from us to run our country? And is the IRS so militant?

[quote]The remainder of the stolen loot is then 're-distributed' - which - socialists reassure us - is done to 'help the less fortunate'[/quote]

Why do people keep acting like they are talked to regularly by socialists? Only a few people actually admit to being socialists. And there are currently only a couple of socialists in the senate. The rest of the democrats and republicans still do not admit to being socialists for fear of identifying themselves with Soviet Russia, but socialists and caring dems and reps are both working towards the same goal, to help the less fortunate.

Great Quote:
"When I give the poor food they call me a saint.

When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a Communist."

[quote]In fact, the recipients of the loot are mostly the people who have the most influence with the politicians - the people who are the best at 'sucking up', who are the best at 'offering favours', who are the best at manipulating and conning. Ironically in the U.S, it's 'big business' who plays this game the best. This is socialism.[/quote]

Under a socialist system a companies everyday decisions are determined by who needs the product most. They are in effect "controlled" by the government. That is socialism.

I do not know in any way how you could possibly call any part of big business a socialist construct. Only capitalism can foster this kind of behavior from a company. Socialist companies would not even need to worry about asking "favors" from the government. They are apart of the government.

By the way that one is a doosy of an approach. I have never heard anyone ever saying big business is an effect of socialism in this country.

[quote]What of 'Friendly A.I' and the 'Singularity'? Is it true that an S.A.I can bring about the world the socialists yearn for - a world in which goods and services are produced simply by 'wishing'? No! For even an S.A.I cannot evade reality. [/quote]

First of all, even if that’s what a socialist believed an AI could probably accrue enough resources from the galaxy such that any person could wish for anything and it would be enough to satisfy his expectations of a wish. But obviously socialists are not just a bunch of people who live in fantasy worlds.

Socialism has no place after the SIAI becomes operable. Nor does Capitalism. As I said earlier in my posts you would never need a stock market or a business model where an SI could give you whatever you want. You would never need an equal wage either. Economics theory is thrown out because it is based on a very limited society. Our entire perception of limits is thrown out if we were to have an SI, we could get whatever we want, when we want it, without interference from government, corporation, or anything else know to be a problem in our current world. We would be free from it all.

[quote] an S.A.I will still make mistakes no matter how super-human it's abilities. [/quote]

That is not necessarily true. We make mistakes because we make mistakes in judgment. An SAI would be cognitive of its entire perception of its consciousness and beyond. It would be able to tell what would happen and when based on its full understanding of how it works, uses and controls itself and its own environment. If an SAI were to make a "mistake" it wouldn't really be a mistake as much as an outcome that was foreseen but unfavorable. If an SAI had some problem and needed to solve it and predicted a 40% chance of outcome one happening and a 60% chance of outcome two happening, and outcome one actually happened because of its actions, it wouldn't really be a mistake because he did not really miscalculate anything. A mistake is a mistake in judgment. An SAI would be able to have nearly perfect judgment because it could improve upon itself so much so that it would be nearly infinitely impossible to find something that an SAI would not be able to predict would happen. An SAI would never be a "mistake" or a "miscalculation" because it would never make a move without predicting certain outcomes first. It would then decide what to do if said outcomes were to occur before taking any course of action.

This of course is from the standpoint of an SAI that is fully functional, millions of times more advanced than the human cognitive functions and has already taken "guardianship" of the human race. In guardianship I mean being able to satisfy every humans every need while at the same time able to do whatever it wills on its own without interfering with its friendly super-goal.

[quote]Finally the S.A.I may be able to manipulate some *laws of nature* but it would have had to have discovered still deeper laws to have done so - and these deeper laws will still impose limitations. [/quote]

This is true. So an SAI might not be able to predict an outcome if it were apart of something the SAI did not understand yet. But I do not think that the Universe is so complex that an SAI would even have to worry about what physical laws govern existence any smaller than superstring. Nor would it affect anyone really if an SAI were not to understand these deeper laws.

[quote]Far from enabling a socialist society, an S.A.I will in fact provide the most graphic demonstration of the truth of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism.
[/quote]

I'm interested to know what is your take on competition in the post-singularity world. I myself cannot understand why anyone would even need to interact with anyone else in a world where anybody can just ask for a finite simulation of an old friend they knew or some person in history they want to meet.

[Mangala]

I'm always amazed that there are still people who think that any form of socialism is a good idea.

As am I of capitalists. Capitalism only lets the rich control the world while my version of socialism helps all or at least most live out the life they want to live.

You could have a magic genie which granted you wishes until you were blue in the face but it wouldn't raise your happiness one iota.

Well if we had said SAI, I could wish to go on a movie-like adventure in which I was the star character and have tons of fun. Happiness can be increased by wishes. But that has nothing to do with the debate; I only intended to point out the flaw in logic.

Socialism is the idea that if someone else gives us a whole bunch of stuff and runs our lives for us we will be happy.

That may actually be the definition of socialism that some encyclopedia might give, but in my version of the system, socialism is a system in which the government tries its best to give everyone a fair chance to prove they are smarter or more talented in any field. Its gives a fair starting line.

Simply being given a whole lot of material things does not produce happiness.

Nor did one say it did.

What makes a person happy is succeding through one's OWN EFFORT.

You probably wouldn't be that much better off if the government did not make sure that you received some schooling. A person alone cannot do much to increase his happiness and standard of living. That is why we have governments.

Definitely not! The French economy in particular has a far higher rate of unemployment and a lower standard of living than the U.S. There is more poverty under socialism. The English economy is actually quite free-market now.

Both England and France are very much more socialist than the US and they are not third world countries. The French also have a much higher literacy rate and everyone is paid for in terms of a college education regardless of how much your parents make. And yes people do not go to certain schools because they cannot afford it in this country. I will look to find concrete evidence of England's socialist policies as all I know is that I've heard nothing but socialist ideals coming from my English friends.


I'm not going to quote the responses from John Galt because of the way he phrases the statements given. Rather I will try to reason about what he is trying to say. Mr. Galt, please use the quote button.

The post office is just one example and it works fine. The problem is that even though it is a government run system, it is still worked like a business. The government would do a whole lot better in actually working to make the post office work more for the people using the mail system rather than the disorganized way a company might run the post office with the value being "make more money." It all comes down to the values, do we have companies in order to make money, or do we have companies in order to give people a chance to do something with their lives, do we have companies to provide for the common good and produce products for people, or do we have companies just because some people's creative ideas for products need to be expressed through mass production? The truth is, at the end of the day, you want a company that will work for you. A company should work for the interest of the consumer, not the money made. The fact that the post office still works for money is what holds it back.

Microsoft is a monopoly. It uses whatever it can to stop other companies from implementing new operating systems and internet browsers. The government is not doing its job to make sure there is a competent competition against the software giant. Microsoft should be split apart.

Socialism can have monopolies. But monopolies only hinder people's lives under capitalism. Capitalists know that a company by its very nature does not truly work for the consumer as much as for the money. Competition between companies actually tricks companies into wanting to develop things with the consumer in mind while in the race for more money than the other company. Since socialist companies will know that their goal is to work for the consumer in the first place, it is not so necessary to compete, but I could see how socialist companies could benefit from competition.

Yes people move from class to class but it is rare in terms of the move from middle and lower class to upper class. This discrepancy is unjust. In a truly competitive world smarter people would be able to move to different classes all the time. But many times brain smart poor people are never perceived as intelligent because they are never given a chance.

[Mangala]

As for Mr. Galt sending the paper to the writer’s competition, I do not think that would be a good idea because it sends a wrong message to the people who have not yet read my posts. As an example, the belief that all socialists believe that there is a set amount of wealth to be re-distributed. It would be a very narrow submission.

As for the analysis of the friendly AI, you have a couple of good points. Maybe you should write a separate paper on the AI and then hand that in. If you included the stereotyping of the socialist, I would be compelled to send in a reply, which I guess would be beneficial to the institute, but deleterious to me.

[Sophianic]

Well that's quite interesting that you have decided to come back after so long sophianic.

I've been monitoring the thread.

Were you waiting for someone like me to come back and debate with, or were you waiting for another capitalist to come by and support your opinion of the ways things are going?

Neither. What would make you think that either was the case?

[Sophianic]

As for Mr. Galt sending the paper to the writer’s competition, I do not think that would be a good idea because it sends a wrong message to the people who have not yet read my posts.

His post doesn't depend on your posts. It stands alone.

As an example, the belief that all socialists believe that there is a set amount of wealth to be re-distributed.  It would be a very narrow submission.

A narrow submission according to Mangala. His post makes several valid points.

As for the analysis of the friendly AI, you have a couple of good points.  Maybe you should write a separate paper on the AI and then hand that in.

Two separate submissions would be better.

If you included the stereotyping of the socialist, I would be compelled to send in a reply, which I guess would be beneficial to the institute, but deleterious to me.

There was little stereotyping going on in his post. Socialists really do want to force the strong, the wealthy and the able to relinquish the fruits of their mental labor.

There is no room for the initiation of force, fraud or coercion in a free society.

None whatsoever.

Please give up your dream of using the Law to force your views on the rest of us.

[kyle65uk]

Actually as it would appear until this recent flurry of posts sophianic hadn't posted for about 40 days, and Mangala 30 days, so there isnt actually a huge difference anyway, thus making insinuations as to the reason why appear "not relevent to the debate", as you have frequently told others. As it would be if I were to suggest that you were just waiting until there were several posts after my last ones for you to ignore them and answer the new ones instead. But then as I said that wouldn't be helpful nor fact based.

[Mangala]

There was little stereotyping going on in his post.

Of course Mr. Galt was stereotyping socialists. He said we believe all believe there is a set amount of wealth to be distributed and that we all believe a workable society can be created based on wishes and conjuring wealth out of thin air. Since I do not think these ideas make sense, he is in effect making a broad stereotype about socialists that is not true.

I highly doubt Mr. Galt even read much of the posts even before he replied to the socialist-capitalist debate. Therefore it is my belief that his own perception of what is a socialist prevailed even before reading the position of the only socialist here.

Socialists really do want to force the strong, the wealthy and the able to relinquish the fruits of their mental labor.

Well force is not the right word, but I would like the wealthy to be "put on trial" and analyze whether wealthy people are wealthy because they actually contribute more than the poor human being, that they are better than any human being, or that they have a better right to life than any other human being. What do we value about the wealthy that we give them so much?

As it would be if I were to suggest that you were just waiting until there were several posts after my last ones for you to ignore them and answer the new ones instead.

I am very sorry I did not reply to your last posts. I actually started to but accidentally closed the window when I was halfway through. I will try again.

Also I want to praise you Kyle for seeing through my sarcastic remarks of the past. As I've said I needed to take a vacation from writing about such a serious topic like this. I will be much more of a moderator from now on and less like an angry politician.

[thefirstimmortal]

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

O'Rights, At first blush, it would seem that there is little mystery about the impulses driving the human species in this quest: we engage in such productive activities merely to enhance our material condition. We invent technologies that will improve our standard of living and make our lives more pleasant and comfortable. Notice, however, that our species from the earliest periods of prehistory seems compelled not just to survive, but to grow, progress, and enhance itself and its environment. Our species probably could have chosen to not progress beyond relatively humble levels of material development, such as the hunter-gatherer stage we reached thousands of years ago, and still maintained an adequate though inconsequential existence. Yet our species has striven ceaselessly to improve our physical lot. In addition, at each new level, we endeavor to master our environment as well as the physical dynamics governing our universe.

So while I agree with your assertion, I fail to see the "problem".

[thefirstimmortal]

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

O'Rights, There are only two basic ways to organize society: coercively, through government dictates, or voluntarily, through the myriad interactions among free individuals. All the various "isms" socialism, monarchy, communism, conservatism, liberalism ...ect, all boil down to a single question: Who is going to make the decision about this particular aspect of your life, you or somebody else?

Do you spend the money you earn,or does government?
Do you pick the school your child goes to, or does the school board?
Do you decide what drugs to take when you're sick, or does the Food and Drug Administration in Washington?

In a civil society, you make the choices about your life. In a political society, someone else makes those choices. And because people naturally resist letting others make important choices for them, the political society is of necessity based on coercion.

[thefirstimmortal]

Governments cannot really do this if companies keep messing things up by only thinking about their profit margins. Think about the amount of people that could be saved during an epidemic if the government just gave out the cures for a disease and paid the workers anyway instead of a company making the excuse it couldn't give cures to everyone because everybody doesn't have enough money.

Government is not an agency of faith and compassion, but instead an agency of coercion and force.

[thefirstimmortal]

Mag, Governments cannot really do this if companies keep messing things up by only thinking about their profit margins. Think about the amount of people that could be saved during an epidemic if the government just gave out the cures for a disease and paid the workers anyway instead of a company making the excuse it couldn't give cures to everyone because everybody doesn't have enough money.

O'Rights, Government is not an agency of faith and compassion, but instead an agency of coercion and force.

[thefirstimmortal]

Mangala

1) The same wages for ALL WORKERS

2) Democratic, governmental control of all fields of business

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

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

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

O'Rights, I do not embracing "the movement known as 'socialism,' which places the importance of society ahead of the unfettered rights of the individual." (I'll bet you didn't realize how "unfettered" your rights have been lately.)

"Socialism," or "civil society" thinking (the two have similar meanings) has many interpretations, but at its center is a notion that years of celebrating individual freedom have weakened the bonds of community and that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the interests of society as a whole. Inherent in the philosophy is a return to values and morality, which, the school of thought believes, can best be fostered by community organizations.

Socialist seems to look good on the surface: decisions will be made for the good of the community. But, in fact, like any government-based philosophy it is a sham. Communities Don't Make Decisions Communities don't think, don't believe, don't
want, don't have needs, don't have interests, and don't make decisions. Only individuals have minds that generate desires and needs and only individuals can make choices and decisions.

Because "society" doesn't make decisions, the issue isn't a case of balancing individual rights against the interests of society. The question is: will you make the decisions that control your life or will someone else impose his way upon you? That someone else won't be the community or society, it will be whoever seizes the power to run the community.

By making the changes you propose, your not acting on behalf of the community. Your confiscating my earnings and giving it to the charities that please you and your political associates. You may do it in the name of society, compassion, community, or Snickers bars. But it is simply raw political power, the same kind exercised by Stalin and all his predecessors, preempting my right to use the money I earn in the way I think best.

Perhaps you think we have been enjoying too much individual freedom, and that we must give up some of that for the
benefit of the community. But you really mean that you want more power over my life, to force me to subsidize, obey, and
conform to your choices.

The idea that we have too much freedom is really laughable. Are we enjoying unfettered individualism when, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 47% of the national income is diverted to federal, state, and local taxes? How free are we when the politicians impose their choices on our life in whatever way they want unrestrained by the limits written in the Constitution?

[thefirstimmortal]

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

O'Rights, I would ask that we Immortals seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

I believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, I defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and we welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build should be one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power that Mangala is proposing.

[thefirstimmortal]

Mangala Do you honestly think these people dreamed of growing up to be postal workers, or plumbers, or ticket takers?

O'Rights, and just what would your dream job be, and if I may be so bold to ask, what is it that you do now?

[thefirstimmortal]

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

O'Rights, As CEO of ULEC Inc, I'm in a position to report to you, that it doesn't matter why a CEO becomes a CEO. If a CEO does not turn that dollar, the company folds, and no one makes money.

[thefirstimmortal]

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

Think more deeply about what your saying, because the ideals you support are very aggressive.

I oppose any and all aggression against the property rights of individuals in their own persons and in the material objects they have voluntarily acquired. While individuals and gangs of criminals are of course opposed, there is nothing unique here to my creed, since almost all persons and schools of thought oppose the exercise of random violence against persons and property.

The critical difference between you and I is not in the area of private crime, the critical difference is the view of the role of the State, or the government. I regard the State as the supreme, the eternal, the best organized aggressor against the person and property of the mass of the public. All States everywhere, whether democratic, dictatorial, or monarchical.

For centuries the State has robbed people at gun point and called it "taxation." Every other person or group receives its income by voluntary payment, either by voluntary contribution or gift, or by voluntary purchase of its goods or services on the market. Only the government obtains its income by coercion and violence i.e., by the direct threat of confiscation or imprisonment if payment is not forthcoming. This coerced levy is "taxation." A second distinction is that only the government can use its funds to commit violence against its own or any other subjects. Any and all governments, even the less despotic, have always obtained the bulk of their income from the coercive taxing power. And historically, by far the overwhelming portion of all enslavement and murder in the history of the world have come from the hands of government. And since I am opposed to all aggression against the rights of person and property, I am necessarily opposed to the institution of the State as the inherent and overwhelmingly the most important enemy of those precious rights. And yes, I am opposed to your aggression.

[thefirstimmortal]

- Mangala
So what massive changes do I want? Listen:

1) The same wages for ALL WORKERS

2) Democratic, governmental control of all fields of business

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

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

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


William O'Rights.
Let me tell you what I really want.


I want to live in the America that once existed as the beacon of liberty -- providing light and hope and inspiration to the entire world -- the one that politicians from William McKinley to George W. Bush have replaced with a giant bully that tyrannizes Americans and foreigners alike . . .

I want to live in the America where health care was inexpensive and easily accessible, where health insurance was easy to obtain and cheap, where there were charity hospitals and free clinics, where hospital stays were inexpensive -- the America that existed before the politicians imposed Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO Act, and their yearly "improvements" on us.

I want to live in the America where government at all levels took just 8% of the national income, mainly because the federal government was bound down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution -- where the federal government was so small that it could perform its constitutional functions on just the revenue collected from tariffs and excise taxes, with no income taxes at all.

I want to live in the America of Washington and Jefferson that promoted good will and honest commerce toward all countries, and hatred toward none -- one in which the politicians don't blame their own failures on faceless foreigners.

I want to live in the America where people like George Bush, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Teddy Kennedy and people like you can't impose their ideas on me -- where each American is free to work out his own destiny.

[thefirstimmortal]

Mangala, your arguments seem to support the view that wealth turns people into loafers; wealth gives the children of the rich an unfair advantage in life; and beyond a certain level, rich already have enough and thus the wealth can do more good if made available to society as a whole.

These arguments are interesting, but they all ignore the most important question: If the we are not entitled to our own money, who is? Who should receive my money instead?

Will my money go to the politicians for their use, to keep themselves in power, to reward their friends, and to punish their enemies.

Why should I believe that people like George Bush, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, or Teddy Kennedy will use my money in ways more beneficial to society than I would?

The politicians have used money taxed away from me and other people to decimate what was once the best health-care system the world has ever known.

They have used my money to make education less and less effective. They have squandered my money on unwinnable "wars" against poverty and drugs.

Could I have done more damage to society?

Do I want you or the government to Have My Money?


Yeah, Just what we want -- more revenue the government can use to interfere with medicine and run up the prices of prescription
drugs, the way it's run up the prices of hospital stays and health insurance -- more resources with which to continue the destruction of American schools -- more ways to get people and institutions hooked on the government dole.

How about Smaller Government?

I prefer to see a tax cut so massive that it can't possibly produce more revenue -- that it will in fact cause far less revenue to be available to the government. Then maybe we'll get what neither Republican nor Democratic politicians have the slightest interest in today -- a reduction in government itself.

I want a government so small that it can't monitor my email, can't snoop in my bank account, can't tax my income, can't tell me how
to live.

Unfortunately, the best argument for getting government out of our wallets is never raised. It is that people who earn money have demonstrated by their ability to earn the money that they're far more competent to disburse it than politicians are.

[Mangala]

Wow, Mr. O'Rights is it? Well I think you touch on a few good points but most of your analysis of socialists is blinded by my first and last posts.

I realize now that I cannot seriously ask people to read every single word we've written on this thread before posting something of their own, but I'll just have to restate a bunch of stuff all over again.

Start your Engines!

[quote]Who is going to make the decision about this particular aspect of your life, you or somebody else?[/quote]

We live in a democracy. My system says nothing about changing our current democratically ran government.

[quote]Do you spend the money you earn, or does government?[/quote]

Both, that's the way it's always been.

[quote]Do you pick the school your child goes to, or does the school board?[/quote]

Wow, no ones even touched that point. Private schools do have value in terms of religious ethic. I can totally understand the right to pick the type of school you want your child to go to if you decide the public school does not have a certain feature.

What I do not like at all is the education divide caused by private schools. Private schools have always been for the wealthy. It is only recently in human history that the government provided schooling for the less fortunate. I do not appreciate any attempt by the wealthy to make sure that they have a more educated child than mine based merely on a paycheck. Where is the logic in letting some rich parents have smarter children. Why are children born into richer families somehow deserving of a better right to societies fruits?

[quote]Do you decide what drugs to take when you're sick, or does the Food and Drug Administration in Washington?[/quote]

What? Do you seriously not want the FDA to make sure that your drugs are safe and effective? In the early twentieth century we had no FDA and companies could say whatever they wanted about the drugs they made. Would you like to take an Advil when you know you have a headache or would you like to not know if your drug really works. Please explain how in the world the FDA is a bad thing. If you would like the FDA to be less beauracratic, I can understand that, but to get rid of an organization like that seems almost insane. People could get sold stuff that was toxic or diseased or just didn't work. I like the FDA, why don't you?

[quote]In a civil society, you make the choices about your life. In a political society, someone else makes those choices[/quote]

That's too general. I could say that in laissez-faire capitalism the companies make too many decisions about your life while in socialism you can make whatever choices you want.

Let's get this out of the way. What rights do you think Socialism takes away?

[quote]Governments cannot really do this if companies keep messing things up by only thinking about their profit margins. Think about the amount of people that could be saved during an epidemic if the government just gave out the cures for a disease and paid the workers anyway instead of a company making the excuse it couldn't give cures to everyone because everybody doesn't have enough money.

Government is not an agency of faith and compassion, but instead an agency of coercion and force. [/quote]

These two seem to contradict each other. So you're saying it would be much more beneficial for the government to just give out the cures but at the same time it would be deleterious because the government is forcing people to....I don't know....take the drugs?

Clarify please.

[quote]I do not embracing "the movement known as 'socialism,' which places the importance of society ahead of the unfettered rights of the individual." (I'll bet you didn't realize how "unfettered" your rights have been lately.) [/quote]

I believe Socialism will make many more individuals and organizations of individuals.

That is an interesting subject. Which is more important, the happiness of one person, or the happiness of two people. I might start that topic.

However it is still my belief that Socialism will make a lot more people happier than capitalism has. And I do not want to see any freedoms taken away from people in implementing a socialist system.

And yes I do realize the amount of freedom I have. I do not want to take away those freedoms away from my life or anyone else’s.

Once again, what freedoms are taken away by Socialism?

[quote]but at its center is a notion that years of celebrating individual freedom have weakened the bonds of community and that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the interests of society as a whole.[/quote]

At first I thought you were wrong but then I realized that is exactly what my system is. It is the notion that one wealthy and happy person should not be more important than two poor and unhappy people. The idea is that the majority of people in this country should be able to get a good education, get good medical care, and get a job that they want to do.

[quote]decisions will be made for the good of the community[/quote]

The government already does this.

[quote]Only individuals have minds that generate desires and needs and only individuals can make choices and decisions. [/quote]

But individuals working together represent communities, thus communities are living constructs in themselves. They can decide, they can want, and that is why we can say, North Korea is evil. There is nothing inherently evil about the country of North Korea and yet we can say this with the idea that the main force in North Korea, the government contains many evil individuals. We can speak of communities and of individual as the same because usually individuals have many of the same interests.

Or else, how would democracy even work?

[quote]Your confiscating my earnings and giving it to the charities that please you and your political associates. [/quote]

What? Why would I keep it? Who would put me in charge? None other than the people, the people decide who gets money and who don't. We have a democracy, I like it, and I think you all do too. If we live in a democracy why would the government represent any other view other than what the people want?

And socialism does not inherently hoard money for politicians. Nor does it confiscate any money from people. Socialism simply states that some people do not deserve the large amount of money they receive. It also states that poor people do not deserve the small amounts of money they receive either. And since money is a determining factor in the right to life, the right to happiness in general, no one is better than anyone else as to deserve more happiness, education or medical care than anyone else. Therefore, medical care should be given out equally, education should be given out equally. And people should not receive bad equal education either. The government should work as hard as possible to make sure that all schools are at a certain level of greatness as to be something that makes sense if we are to implement this equality. We do not want a whole country on uneducated people and then just say, well at least no one's better than anyone else.

[quote]Perhaps you think we have been enjoying too much individual freedom, and that we must give up some of that for the
benefit of the community. But you really mean that you want more power over my life, to force me to subsidize, obey, and
conform to your choices. [/quote]

Do I think I have too much freedom? [ggg] Of course not! Why would anyone feel as if they just have too much freedom to enjoy and need to cut back?

I do not want power over anyone's life. We have a democracy, do you really think anyone in this country is going to give that up?

[quote]The idea that we have too much freedom is really laughable.[/quote]

Indeed.

[quote]according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 47% of the national income is diverted to federal, state, and local taxes? How free are we when the politicians impose their choices on our life in whatever way they want unrestrained by the limits written in the Constitution? [/quote]

Are politicians really living the good life? I really do not think that politicians take so much money from us (I do not even believe it is even that much money) only to keep a whole bunch in their own pockets. I think you confuse these politicians with CEOs.

I do not think politicians should live any better a life than the taxpayer. All money from taxes should go towards helping the people.

[Mangala]

[quote]I would ask that we Immortals seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

I believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, I defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and we welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build should be one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power that Mangala is proposing.[/quote]

I too share these ideals. However I see no justice in giving in to a minority by holding down the majority. If we talked enough O'Rights, we'd probably come to the same conclusions, not about socialism probably, but probably about individual and societal happiness.

Companies are an authoritarian power and they take away rights all the time. Wealth people in general also work to make sure that their rights are equated with monetary value. This is unjust. Money should not equal power and should not be used to limit another person's freedom, it should simply be something to coordinate a person's life with.

[quote]O'Rights, and just what would your dream job be, and if I may be so bold to ask, what is it that you do now? [/quote]

[blush] I'm in High School right now. But I'm going to college and probably going to study either biological or computer engineering. The one thing I would love to do would be to work on the singularity, to really build a seed AI. But my overall happiness would probably increase if I chose to become a doctor or a lawyer. Thus, another problem with the capitalist system, job choice is limited by money. People should choose jobs because they want to do them, because they think they would be good at doing them, not because they make more money.

But thanks for asking!

[quote]As CEO of ULEC Inc, I'm in a position to report to you, that it doesn't matter why a CEO becomes a CEO. If a CEO does not turn that dollar, the company folds, and no one makes money.[/quote]

Aha! Exactly! The actual goal is to increase profit margins not to increase the quality of the product to serve the consumer! This is the fundamental reason why capitalist companies are bad in many ways. They are not started to give a person a certain service, they are started usually make some dough.

Now let’s think about this in terms of values.

Socialist company Value order

1. Make a product that serves the customer
2. Increase profits to maintain the company and to increase the quality of the product
3. Beat the competition if necessary

Capitalist company Value order

1. Increase profits to serve the management
2. Make a product that customers would buy in order to increase profits.
3. Beat the competition

The goal of a capitalist company is to make a product that would be bought, not that would be beneficial to society. You see what I'm saying here? Companies today make commercials all the time about how they care about the customer and that they are only trying to help you out, but as Mr. O'Rights said, the goal is actually to increase profits for the people controlling the company. If the company is going under, profits must be increased still. The first and fundamental values are the most problematic. WE NEED COMPANIES THAT SERVE THE PEOPLE, NOT THE SYSTEM OF GETTING MORE MONEY.

I do not care whether you are a capitalist or a socialist, you should see that companies today have the values mixed up.

It is only in competition that companies even manage to make a product that serves our society beneficially.

[quote]Think more deeply about what your saying, because the ideals you support are very aggressive.

I oppose any and all aggression against the property rights of individuals in their own persons and in the material objects they have voluntarily acquired. While individuals and gangs of criminals are of course opposed, there is nothing unique here to my creed, since almost all persons and schools of thought oppose the exercise of random violence against persons and property.[/quote]

Aggressive? C'mon Mr. O'Rights why is giving equal education to all aggressive? I am not just saying this for the sake of saying it, please answer why you think this it true.

[quote]For centuries the State has robbed people at gun point and called it "taxation." Every other person or group receives its income by voluntary payment, either by voluntary contribution or gift, or by voluntary purchase of its goods or services on the market.[/quote]

So you think the government robs you of your money unjustly? The government is elected by us, and is made up of us. They don't just use taxes to build mansions for themselves, they use the money to expand the military to protect our country. They use the money for space exploration which we vote for every year. They give funding to projects that are working toward technological and biological improvement. The government uses this money to make sure that many people receive at least some level of education.

Just as many religious zealots may say, "I would not want to live in a world without God" I say "I wouldn't want to live in a country without the government either." Of course I do not depend upon the government as much as I would an omnipotent being if I did believe in one, but the government does contribute a lot to society, and it's "over-taxation" is not leaving anyone on the streets without food and water.

What is really insane, is that the rich actually get taxed to a lesser percentage than the poor do. Who decided that should be the rule? Even if we did lower taxes to something Mr. O'Rights agreed with, why should poor people be taxed more for being poor. It's like the game Monopoly's poor tax card. It just doesn't make any sense.

[quote]I want to live in the America that once existed as the beacon of liberty -- providing light and hope and inspiration to the entire world -- the one that politicians from William McKinley to George W. Bush have replaced with a giant bully that tyrannizes Americans and foreigners alike . . .[/quote]

You know things were a lot more easier when America had the backs of slaves to step on...

But we all know slavery and sweatshops are immoral, so if you want to go reactionary on us, think first about how America has always had other people to use as sycophants. Whether it's been blacks, the Chinese, Italians, the Irish, the Jews, or even the most recent sweatshops in other countries America has stayed on top and stayed so free because of a singular philosophy, "We never do our dirty work."

I'm an American, and I appreciate being an American every day, but I do not appreciate being a part of the American history of making slaves and virtual slaves in order to maintain freedom for some.

[quote]I want to live in the America where health care was inexpensive and easily accessible, where health insurance was easy to obtain and cheap, where there were charity hospitals and free clinics, where hospital stays were inexpensive -- the America that existed before the politicians imposed Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO Act, and their yearly "improvements" on us.[/quote]

Where the Heck is that? The average American has always had a hard time getting good Health care, from colonial times to laissez-faire, to even now.
Before HMO's poor people were still denied the right to life very often.

[quote]I want to live in the America where government at all levels took just 8% of the national income, mainly because the federal government was bound down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution -- where the federal government was so small that it could perform its constitutional functions on just the revenue collected from tariffs and excise taxes, with no income taxes at all.[/quote]

Well we'll just cross off a whole bunch of government programs that are only existent because companies could never make any money off of them. You can't sell cancer research.

[quote]I want to live in the America of Washington and Jefferson that promoted good will and honest commerce toward all countries, and hatred toward none -- one in which the politicians don't blame their own failures on faceless foreigners.[/quote]

Both had slaves and could not care less about any other countries' people. End of story.

[quote]I want to live in the America where people like George Bush, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Teddy Kennedy and people like you can't impose their ideas on me -- where each American is free to work out his own destiny. [/quote]

Well, I guess...

[quote]If the we are not entitled to our own money, who is? Who should receive my money instead?[/quote]

Whoever else is working and making less than the rich at the time. If you are going to equate money with happiness, everyone should be happy.

You are getting too close to transitional socialism, which we have not talked about. I might start a post on how best to turn a capitalist society to a socialist society if people were even willing to not discuss whether it works or not, but rather if it did work, what’s the best way to change.

[quote]Will my money go to the politicians for their use, to keep themselves in power, to reward their friends, and to punish their enemies.[/quote]

Well that's pretty narrow.

[quote]Why should I believe that people like George Bush, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, or Teddy Kennedy will use my money in ways more beneficial to society than I would?[/quote]

It’s already been done with taxes. And I think politicians have done an OK enough job in benefiting our society.

I might also start a post about whether our country is truly a democracy. After all, were George Bush and Al Gore really the best people we could find to become president. I don't think so.

[quote]Could I have done more damage to society?[/quote]

You don't belong to any sort of organization really, you could not do much on your own with the taxes that you would not be taxed.

[quote]Yeah, Just what we want -- more revenue the government can use to interfere with medicine and run up the prices of prescription
drugs[/quote]

Ha! The government does that? COMPANIES DO THAT. If you ask anyone they will tell you that companies are the reason many medical services are so sky high.

[quote]I want a government so small that it can't monitor my email, can't snoop in my bank account, can't tax my income, can't tell me how
to live.[/quote]

Are you a libertarian. I don't mean it in a bad way at all, I just am curious if you are.

[quote]Unfortunately, the best argument for getting government out of our wallets is never raised.[/quote]

Well it is raised, but not very often. Many politicians know of the libertarian party.


Once again nice analysis Mr. O'Rights, but it lacks the full understanding of my system. The government is not some overbearing natural force, in our country it is a group of people organized to protect and benefit Americans.

Until Next Time, lol