• 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
- - - - -

Whole Foods and Obamacare


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#121 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 29 August 2009 - 05:52 PM

That's why I'm saying people would work in a moneyless society. You said people wouldn't work if there wasn't an incentive to earn more then others, that's the general argument for capitalism and clearly, in your case that's not true.


If you would have read my post you would see that I did not mention money. I mentioned profit.

Money is the medium of exchange for a certain kind of value.

You propose forcibly transferring value from one party to another. I prefer transferring value through voluntary means.

Your system will result in less total value. A lot less. It is unsustainable.

#122 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 29 August 2009 - 05:56 PM

That's why I'm saying people would work in a moneyless society. You said people wouldn't work if there wasn't an incentive to earn more then others, that's the general argument for capitalism and clearly, in your case that's not true.


If you would have read my post you would see that I did not mention money. I mentioned profit.

Money is the medium of exchange for a certain kind of value.

You propose forcibly transferring value from one party to another. I prefer transferring value through voluntary means.

Your system will result in less total value. A lot less. It is unsustainable.


No no no no nooooooo that's tax, again, I'm talking about a totally new system without property

#123 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 29 August 2009 - 06:01 PM

Why? Even Communist nations are part of the UN. Again, present the statistics supporting your claims that poverty is increaseing. poorest.


You mean Stalinist states, not communist countries. Stalinist states are closer to state capitalism then communism.

I have presented many finding exactly the opposite for the world's


Please see my other posts, but a quick google search will through up articles stating its on the up:

http://www.globalhea...ws/article/5695
http://ibnlive.in.co...nk/85465-2.html
http://www.undp.kg/e...ic-crisis-bites
http://www.thestar.c.../article/683036

At least you are now trying to use some sources instead of personal opinons. But none of these contradict what my sources said. That long-term poverty is rapidly declining in the developing world. The current economic downturn has obviously increased poverty somewhat but once it is over the long term-trend will resume.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#124 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 29 August 2009 - 06:01 PM

And the instability is made worse by our sudden turn left, too.


Nonsense. Things got much better in Europe with the shift to the left after the war for instance. Things also generally improved in Cuba, compared to what it was like.

That's my point. At the very least, there isn't a stable path to Socialism proper.
The gradual path seems to lead downwards towards poverty, and revolutions generally don't turn out so well either.


Yep, and there are reasons, which is my whole point!

Why do you assume that it's even possible to get to socialism proper ?


I'm not sure if it's possible or not, I hope it is. I just object to saying it's failed.

#125 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 29 August 2009 - 06:04 PM

At least you are now trying to use some sources instead of personal opinons. But none of these contradict what my sources said. That long-term poverty is rapidly declining in the developing world. The current economic downturn has obviously increased poverty somewhat but once it is over the long term-trend will resume.


So? People will never be totally free and equal though will they, this is my point!

This was my slavery point which you totally missed, I wasn't saying capitalism was slavery I was saying that you could make a similar argument about slavery. That conditions improved for slaves as the time went by In America, but does this make slavery a good system?

Edited by captainbeefheart, 29 August 2009 - 06:05 PM.


#126 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 29 August 2009 - 06:07 PM

Some interesting statistics:

http://www.cato.org/...-figure-2-9.pdf
http://www.cato.org/...-figure-3-1.pdf
http://www.cato.org/...-figure-2-5.pdf
http://www.cato.org/...e-table-4-1.pdf

#127 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 29 August 2009 - 06:29 PM

Nonsense. Things got much better in Europe with the shift to the left after the war for instance. Things also generally improved in Cuba, compared to what it was like.

I disagree. Let's leave it at that.

I'm not sure if it's possible or not, I hope it is. I just object to saying it's failed.


Socialism is good at a family scale, It's semi-failed at small scales (Kibbutz, Communes).
It's failed(with caveats, interference yadda yadda) at larger scales so far.
Again, why do you believe that it's even possible ?

#128 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 30 August 2009 - 06:55 AM

I disagree. Let's leave it at that.


I disagree with you disagreeing, :-D I kid, but if you wish we can, tis true though...

Socialism is good at a family scale, It's semi-failed at small scales (Kibbutz, Communes).
It's failed(with caveats, interference yadda yadda) at larger scales so far.
Again, why do you believe that it's even possible ?


As I mentioned before it worked very well in the Commune De Paris. That is until the Rublican Guard was sent in and Macacured them all...

Many 'pockets of socialism', socialised systems have shown to work too.

From a Marxist perspective of history that each turning point in history (epoch) is a class struggle of some kind, so it's a natural progression.

aaaaaand again many societies have turned to it and it is always met with great force. The problem always is that so far whenever revolutions do occur it's only been in a small number of countries at a time, surrounded by Capitalist nations, it doesn't stand a chance. Again this is my point show me a example of socialism being given a fair crack at the whip and then you can say socialism is a failed idea. But you can't so it isn't...end of as you haven't you're just going back to the same arguments as before...

#129 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 30 August 2009 - 07:04 AM

I disagree. Let's leave it at that.


I disagree with you disagreeing, :-D I kid, but if you wish we can, tis true though...

Socialism is good at a family scale, It's semi-failed at small scales (Kibbutz, Communes).
It's failed(with caveats, interference yadda yadda) at larger scales so far.
Again, why do you believe that it's even possible ?


As I mentioned before it worked very well in the Commune De Paris. That is until the Rublican Guard was sent in and Macacured them all...

Many 'pockets of socialism', socialised systems have shown to work too.

From a Marxist perspective of history that each turning point in history (epoch) is a class struggle of some kind, so it's a natural progression.

aaaaaand again many societies have turned to it and it is always met with great force. The problem always is that so far whenever revolutions do occur it's only been in a small number of countries at a time, surrounded by Capitalist nations, it doesn't stand a chance. Again this is my point show me a example of socialism being given a fair crack at the whip and then you can say socialism is a failed idea. But you can't so it isn't...end of as you haven't you're just going back to the same arguments as before...

Exactly what " 'pockets of socialism', socialised systems have shown to work"? The Paris Commune existed only for two months, most of the time in a state of war, so cannot say that it worked or not.

#130 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 30 August 2009 - 07:16 AM

I disagree. Let's leave it at that.


I disagree with you disagreeing, :p I kid, but if you wish we can, tis true though...

Socialism is good at a family scale, It's semi-failed at small scales (Kibbutz, Communes).
It's failed(with caveats, interference yadda yadda) at larger scales so far.
Again, why do you believe that it's even possible ?


As I mentioned before it worked very well in the Commune De Paris. That is until the Rublican Guard was sent in and Macacured them all...

Many 'pockets of socialism', socialised systems have shown to work too.

From a Marxist perspective of history that each turning point in history (epoch) is a class struggle of some kind, so it's a natural progression.

aaaaaand again many societies have turned to it and it is always met with great force. The problem always is that so far whenever revolutions do occur it's only been in a small number of countries at a time, surrounded by Capitalist nations, it doesn't stand a chance. Again this is my point show me a example of socialism being given a fair crack at the whip and then you can say socialism is a failed idea. But you can't so it isn't...end of as you haven't you're just going back to the same arguments as before...

Exactly what " 'pockets of socialism', socialised systems have shown to work"? The Paris Commune existed only for two months, most of the time in a state of war, so cannot say that it worked or not.


And when it wasn't at war it did work, and aaaaaaaaaaaaagain this is my point about socialism being opposed, I already said it ended in a war!!!!!

UHC is most western countries, Welfare, etc etc most of them work fine or better then they would. There no where near perfect and need huge improvement but then this isn't a socialist society is it :-D so that's expected. If given the choice to get sick here in the UK or America I know which I would choose...

But this is yet another deviation from my point, because I am not a reformist, trying to reform and socialise things within the system we have ultimately is doomed without total change in the long term as forces will oppose them to a point of destroying them like they have and like they continue to do. As I only support them in as far as the transtional program, it's better then nothing would be my only argument for them... I wish I hadn't mentioned pockets of socialism now really...

#131 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 30 August 2009 - 07:35 AM

I disagree. Let's leave it at that.


I disagree with you disagreeing, :p I kid, but if you wish we can, tis true though...

Socialism is good at a family scale, It's semi-failed at small scales (Kibbutz, Communes).
It's failed(with caveats, interference yadda yadda) at larger scales so far.
Again, why do you believe that it's even possible ?


As I mentioned before it worked very well in the Commune De Paris. That is until the Rublican Guard was sent in and Macacured them all...

Many 'pockets of socialism', socialised systems have shown to work too.

From a Marxist perspective of history that each turning point in history (epoch) is a class struggle of some kind, so it's a natural progression.

aaaaaand again many societies have turned to it and it is always met with great force. The problem always is that so far whenever revolutions do occur it's only been in a small number of countries at a time, surrounded by Capitalist nations, it doesn't stand a chance. Again this is my point show me a example of socialism being given a fair crack at the whip and then you can say socialism is a failed idea. But you can't so it isn't...end of as you haven't you're just going back to the same arguments as before...

Exactly what " 'pockets of socialism', socialised systems have shown to work"? The Paris Commune existed only for two months, most of the time in a state of war, so cannot say that it worked or not.


And when it wasn't at war it did work, and aaaaaaaaaaaaagain this is my point about socialism being opposed, I already said it ended in a war!!!!!

UHC is most western countries, Welfare, etc etc most of them work fine or better then they would. There no where near perfect and need huge improvement but then this isn't a socialist society is it :-D so that's expected. If given the choice to get sick here in the UK or America I know which I would choose...

But this is yet another deviation from my point, because I am not a reformist, trying to reform and socialise things within the system we have ultimately is doomed without total change in the long term as forces will oppose them to a point of destroying them like they have and like they continue to do. As I only support them in as far as the transtional program, it's better then nothing would be my only argument for them... I wish I hadn't mentioned pockets of socialism now really...

So you cannot find a singe example of a working socialist society or community. What is wrong with UN statistics showing that poverty is rapidly improving for the world's poorest?

#132 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 30 August 2009 - 11:15 AM

This is getting nowhere, my point was that there isn't one to show that it failed, simply lessons to learn, the Commune De Paris was very important.

For me total equality is to important not to fight for. It's like life extension I'm not exactly optimistic but it seems to important not to try!

The problem with the UN as I have said before is it's part of the corrupt system, and again as I said it's irrelevant if poverty has gone up or down inequality in on way or another will always exist in this system.

But lets just agree to disagree, ah? If nothing new is added to this I think I'll stop replying now.

Edited by captainbeefheart, 30 August 2009 - 11:16 AM.


#133 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 30 August 2009 - 03:13 PM

When two people have only one dollar each, the capitalist thinks it's poverty, and the socialist thinks it's equality.

When one of them has a million dollars and the other one two million dollars, the capitalist thinks poverty has gone down, but the socialist thinks inequality has gone up.

To the socialist, it doesn't matter how much wealth he has; it only matters how much more someone else has.

#134 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 30 August 2009 - 03:14 PM

No no no no nooooooo that's tax, again, I'm talking about a totally new system without property


whether or not your system acknowledges the existence of property is irrelevant.

You propose forcibly transferring the fruits of one person's labor to another whose labor isn't very fruitful. This is either theft or slavery.

#135 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 30 August 2009 - 04:17 PM

Yeah this is why I don't usually bother arguing with Libertarians, for the same reason I don't bother with creationists. Creationists arguments is always 'the bible says so' like the Libertarian similar response is 'property rights property rights' as if ownership is some inherent nessarity to our existence, it's so close minded.

Again money is just money it's meaningless really on it's own, it makes sense in a system like ours, but to talk about it in socialism makes no sense, clearly you don't get this. But lets agree to disagree ah...

Edited by captainbeefheart, 30 August 2009 - 04:17 PM.


#136 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 30 August 2009 - 09:04 PM

Again money is just money it's meaningless really on it's own, it makes sense in a system like ours, but to talk about it in socialism makes no sense, clearly you don't get this.


On the contrary. I get it perfectly.

Lets ignore money, and property. No one owns anything. Farmer Joe grows corn. Since there is no property Farmer Joe doesn't own the land the corn grows on or the corn itself(he grows it because it makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside to spend his life working on back breaking labor like plowing fields and weeding) The corn thus grown is needed by Doctor Frank who spent 12 years getting his medical education and presently works 80 hours a week, and is needed by Lazy Al, who likes to drink beer and has sat on the porch every day for the last 12 years drinking beer and eating corn chips. Lets go ahead and assume the supply of corn is not infinite, and needs to be divided up among all the Doctor Frank's and Lazy Al's of the world.

How about Computer chip maker Ann. Where does she get all of the hundreds of thousands of components needed for her computer chip making factory that she slaves away at also because it makes her warm and fuzzy inside ( as opposed to Lazy Al who drinks beer and eats corn chips and does nothing but watch the sun rise and set every day who presumably has every bit as much provided to him because everyone has all resources distributed equally to them)
How are resources distributed so Computer chip maker Ann gets hundreds of thousands to millions of components that she needs in her factory, some of which are also needed by Doctor Frank for some medical imaging equipment, and by lazy Al, for his new plasma TV? Is there some super smart guy or team of guys who slave away all day figuring out how to distribute resources optimally because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Do you have any plan or idea how resources would be distributed under your system?

What about Stupid Sam, who really really wants to be a Quantum Physicist because nothing else would make him feel warm and fuzzy inside, but he can't pass high school. Since forcing him to involuntarily work in a menial labor job is out of the question (after all slavery is bad) the only choice is to let him work as best he can in Quantum Physics or maybe just give him a plasma TV some beer , and corn chips and he can go sit on the porch with lazy Al. and the same car Dr. Frank and chipmaker Ann drive of course.

Obviously your system cannot support too many lazy Al's. Does your system take away their plasma TVs and let them starve to death? (the alternative is forcing them to work, only now, completely involuntarily)

But lets agree to disagree ah...


we can so long as you agree you shouldn't force your system on anyone else ;) I have no problem with you forming a commune of people who voluntarily agree to live the way you propose.

#137 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 31 August 2009 - 06:47 AM

As I said each to his ability, if you don;t put anything into the system don't expect to get anything out of it. I'm not in favour of rewarding those that do not work and expect to be given something for free. However if someone for some physical or mental reason can;t put in as much as someone else and can;t find a alternative way to contrbutbute to society then I don;t think it's right to punish them for this and society should support them.

You're clutching at screws with the quantum physics example, I don't think I have ever said we should allow someone to do any job the wish qualified or not, just that they should have the same opportunity to do any job, but that doesn't mean saying if someones totally unqualified or good at the job to do it, this would interfere with other peoples freedoms and rights to life perhaps! Having badly qualified people in jobs is more likely to happen now isn't it? To a certain degree. You can't deny it's who know know in society that matters more then what....

Forcing, no. For it to work it would need to be a mass revolution, the workers taking back control from the bottom up. So the majority for it to work would need to agree with it. You can go and live in a little commune if you don't wish to contribute to society yes ;)

#138 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 31 August 2009 - 10:03 AM

OF course your arguement is illogical anyway as under your ststem people can already simply not work or not work much or perhaps get an inflated wage because of who they know or who they are related too...

#139 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 31 August 2009 - 10:17 AM

It was not illogical at all. The socialists lost 'the calculation debate' decades ago.

#140 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 31 August 2009 - 12:41 PM

It was not illogical at all. The socialists lost 'the calculation debate' decades ago.


...no, no they didn't, the old it doesn't work argument is very tiresome and not proved in the slightest. I could equally show how ineffiant the free market is, but according to you that works and no doubt you'd try and turn the ineffiancy into a positive with your nonsense *yawn*, the calculation debate proves nothing. Are you just looking for stuff with your own point of view now instead of searching truth, as I'm surprised you'd mention that if you were...

Edited by captainbeefheart, 31 August 2009 - 12:49 PM.


#141 david ellis

  • Guest
  • 1,014 posts
  • 79
  • Location:SanDiego
  • NO

Posted 11 October 2009 - 06:04 PM

I am trying to figure out why socialism is so bad. It seems to me that socialism is built into our country from the very beginning.

Let's go in steps.
Is building a highway, say like Eisenhower did in the 50's, is that socialism? Wasn't that something that we have done in America every since the first settlers? Haven't we built bridges, grade schools in common since the very beginning? And is that socialism? And hasn't the community been better off with this socialist development. With a better educated populace and a developed infrastructure didn't we become rich. Why do we now hate the way our country developed?

And haven't we hated from the very beginning the use of monopoly power to collect tolls on privately owned bridges and roads? Is this hate socialist? The railroads carefully calculated their tolls to match the farmers profit. Was the socialist decision to require regulated rates a typical socialist mistake. Is this hate of railroad monopoly power misdirected and should be love for the railroads? Someone guide me through the necessary logic to get to love.

Alexander de Toqueville noticed this socialist trend from the very beginning. He even thought this "building for the common good" was the secret to our success. Was he wrong?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users