Dirty “Socialism”

Dirty “Socialism”

Postby jimbobjoeray » Jul 16, 2008 1:56 pm

I’ve often wondered how exactly different people define socialism? It was given a very bad name once it was linked to Communist/Socialist Russia, but does anyone even really know what it is? How do you define it? What level of it is good, and what level of it is bad? There are at least a dozen forms of workable government philosophies out there, and none of them used in a “purist” form will work. This is why Russia fell, as well as Germany, and every Fachist dictatorship in the world does, as well as Nihilism, Fundamentalism, Isolationism, Anarchism and even Libertarianism and unbridled Capitalism don’t work/last long term.

What types of socialized programs are good?
Socialized Defense?
Socialized roads?
Socialized healthcare?
Socialized water?
Socialized education?
Socialized pensions?

I keep being called a socialist on this website, but even I see there are limits to how far it should and can go and still work. I’d like to see exactly how far others on this website who “hate” socialism think is too far? The response I seem to almost always get is in general “anything socialized is horrible”… but how much of your everyday lives that you take for granted and love, and rely on, is the result of socialized government programs?

So, let’s have it. What should and shouldn’t be socialized and why? What mix of political systems is the best?
"Illogical people have no place in debates, they belong in a world of magic gnomes"
Debate Prof, UWO
User avatar
jimbobjoeray
 
Posts: 824
Joined: May 22, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby KEric » Jul 16, 2008 4:53 pm

I'm a communist purist, so I think communism is perfect, when done right, which has yet to happen.

As far as socialism, in a country like the US, and Canada, we we've all become accustomed to corporate competition, I think everything being socialized, except for higher quality foods and products. With a socialized poor quality equivalent being avaliable also.
User avatar
KEric
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Apr 16, 2008 7:09 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby jimbobjoeray » Jul 16, 2008 5:41 pm

It’s funny because I’ll take a lot of heat over this on these boards, but I always thought the “concept” of communism was perfect… but I just don’t think it can ever be done right. You will always have people who abuse the power they are given, and as a result, the incentives people need to excel in life dry up and hard work goes down the tubes too.

It is sad, because I agree that “done right” communism is the closest thing to Utopia that could exist… you just can’t do it right due to human nature. A mix of systems is best IMHO.
"Illogical people have no place in debates, they belong in a world of magic gnomes"
Debate Prof, UWO
User avatar
jimbobjoeray
 
Posts: 824
Joined: May 22, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby mccapitalism » Jul 16, 2008 7:45 pm

Communist = Perfectionist Optimist

Capitalist = Realist Pessimist

Sound good to you guys?
"And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast." - CT
"Narco-trafficking pseudo-commie terrorists" -Comments on Farc, Americalex
User avatar
mccapitalism
Supporter
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: Sep 04, 2007 11:37 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby Americalex » Jul 16, 2008 11:56 pm

Nice post Jim,

I will try to answer you, but lately even though I'm always loggued on it's not that I don't want to answer, but I want to push and finish the flags page before losing momentum. That thread isn't going anywhere, I'll get back to it next chance I get.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby dittbubbles » Jul 22, 2008 12:12 am

Why not have the best of both instead of clinging to either!?

i think capitalism and communist are both idealist, or rather, both ideologies impractical to maintain in its purity. We live in both. We socialize the things we can, that is, we socialize where its practical to do so, or where it works better. And if practical, if successful, it spreads because other civilizations must then socialize that sector to "keep up".

I believe that US is finding it 'needs' to, in part, socialize their health system.

What scares me a little is there are people who believe a bottle of advil should be covered by the state. IMO thats not what universal health care in canada was designed for. Socialized health care was brought about because it was probable that in your lifetime either you or someone you love would need very VERY expensive drugs, surgery, or treatment. I say Its a good thing that people don't have to go bankrupt to get that. But there are manageable costs, we don't need to socialize every little drug. Did you catch recently about the reporter who asked McCain if health insurance companies should cover birth control if they cover viagra? Anyone know the status of those in Canada, when is birth control/viagra covered? Because I really don't think either should be, unless the person has a unique condition....
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v725/canadapantsman/Communist20Party.jpg[/img]
User avatar
dittbubbles
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Jul 21, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby O. W. Kenobi » Jul 22, 2008 5:27 pm

If Economics is about anything, it's about human behaviour and attitudes, as they relate to the production, acquisition, and disposition of material things.

Human beings are just naturally self-interested in their own welfare, and that of their near and dear ones. They may not wish ill upon strangers, but are less interested in their material welfare.

For an economy to work, it must allow for human nature to take its course in general terms, taking into account, of course, the things that individuals cannot handle themselves (like roads and bridges, a military, etc).

Human beings are not worker ants or Borg, whose only purpose is the good of the collective. Any economic system that pushes collectivism too far, and which fails to take human nature into account, is doomed to failure.
"Sell low, buy lower."
User avatar
O. W. Kenobi
Supporter
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Jun 27, 2003 9:20 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby Monorprise » Jul 23, 2008 12:07 am

jimbobjoeray wrote:I’ve often wondered how exactly different people define socialism? It was given a very bad name once it was linked to Communist/Socialist Russia, but does anyone even really know what it is? How do you define it? What level of it is good, and what level of it is bad? There are at least a dozen forms of workable government philosophies out there, and none of them used in a “purist” form will work. This is why Russia fell, as well as Germany, and every Fachist dictatorship in the world does, as well as Nihilism, Fundamentalism, Isolationism, Anarchism and even Libertarianism and unbridled Capitalism don’t work/last long term.

What types of socialized programs are good?
Socialized Defense?
Socialized roads?
Socialized healthcare?
Socialized water?
Socialized education?
Socialized pensions?

I keep being called a socialist on this website, but even I see there are limits to how far it should and can go and still work. I’d like to see exactly how far others on this website who “hate” socialism think is too far? The response I seem to almost always get is in general “anything socialized is horrible”… but how much of your everyday lives that you take for granted and love, and rely on, is the result of socialized government programs?

So, let’s have it. What should and shouldn’t be socialized and why? What mix of political systems is the best?

The opposite of socialism is capitalism or competition, in the field of economics Put in this respect, its quite easily to understand the definition and inherit evil of socialism.

To be quite frank Socialism depended upon the existents of a monopoly in its case it usually makes that monopoly the state. That monopoly falls apart eventually because it does not compete, and has no motive to better it self, and no means to honestly check it self against a wall of composition.

To this end I can alert that such monopolies exist at different levels. thou to the communist an even modern-day socialist normally push the concept of global subservience’s to their ideology an monopoly. (The establishment of a global monopoly).

as yet with exceptions of attempt such as the UN and other "international organizations" that attempt to impose their will/law on all the world. Such a monopoly does not exist in any respect.

Even your hypothetical so called Socialist military is not really socialist in the global respect, which nation’s militaries must compete with that of other nation’s militaries.

Though military or rather physical force does generally establish it self as a monopoly over a given state, where it exist. The foundation of the United States and our founding fathers were in fact very much concerned about this possibility, which is why the United states military and government was originally extremely decentralized if it could be said to exist in significant form.

The objective was to prevent conflict between the states and enable the several states to defend themselves from foreign threats, while at the same time with the United States Constitution, enable the states to defend themselves if necessary from the federal government.
(It is debatable as to whether or not it fully succeeded on that last part, as the Civil war is also correctly called the War Between the States for good reason.)
In this why even in the traditional Military/force respect there is no true monopoly, at least not one intended, within the United States.



Water like any other resources is one subject to economics, and agreements. Like land, which it self is anther resource, wars between states and individual were fought over this and other resources, the resolutions of which resulted in an agreement in distribution normally based upon natural and distribution among the territory’s of the various parties.
(Usually as a natural consequence of the winning party inheriting control of the territory of the losing party).
To this end, states and individuals in order to prevent further violent conflict over the same resources generally establish and agree upon bounties of uses. This is the basis of treaty between states and laws with in States. This is also in both respects the founding reason for the existents of the necessary evil that is the States.
Because this concept is nearly as old as human civilization, this is not regarded as socialism. It is also not necessarily democratic as it’s usually based upon the power balance of states.

Education in the United States has never been the sole responsibility of any state with in the United States. Education has always started at home, then historically only went to other organizations if both available and deemed necessary. Public schooling has a rather complicated history, but needless to say has historically been based at the local or state level. With only the territories (having no state) being provided by the federal government. It was normally done with the concept that the matinees of a free democratic state requited a population educated enough to some degree as to function as Citizens. It then went on the justification of “national economic advancement”.
Even still the state is not the sole provider of such.

In the United States Pensions didn’t actually exist as a monopoly over the United States until the “FDR’s New Deal” and several failed voluntary attempts at the state level around the same time based upon the same idea.(nobody wanted to put their money into what is effetely a Ponzi schem.) It’s sole constitutional justification is the unlimited taxing and spending power given to congress with the 16th amend of the united states Constitution, made in 1913.
Ever sense we have been forced to give roughly 15% of our pay check to the government with no realistic expectation to get that money returned to us ever.(it doesn’t exist). And to the limited extent this pension and more relevantly other such REAL pensions provided by our jobs do work, it serves to reinforce the break down of the family and traditional value, by removing the grandparents from the biological seen of child raising.(in other words its contributed to the breakdown of our civilization).

Fortunately Healthcare is still not a monopoly with in the United States, and people are still free to choose what healthcare services they subscribe to in accordance’s to their own believes. Thou it is incurably hard with the forced paycheck reduction unless you go with your Job’s plan. And increasingly difficulty with the no price competition created by the concept of insurance companies which are in themselves only not a form of socialism in that they are volunteer economic agreements on the part of the individual, not monopolies. In other words they like the Military of the state, must compete with other such organizations, phlophcy, or arrangements, subject to the party involved. (The individual in this case)


A state can decide to have no military defense at all, just as an individual can decide to have no “healthcare plan” at all. Or a state can decide to go about it completely differently, just as an individual can decide to go about his or her “health care” plan completely differently.

Strictly speaking the individual can also be said to hold such policy of military the, assuming he or she is able to find some stretch of land upon which to clam independent solver.
Typically such attempts tend to either die out with the individual(no successor because there is no one else to succeed them), or are Conquered by larger more powerful group.(general consisting of more than 1 person).
The only remaining possibility, having the power necessary to defend oneself from other groups (requiring other people currently), and the ability to continue to exist as a state( again requiring other people currently). Is of this individual to be the solvency over a given state and to have under her or him, subjects to do his or her bidding and provide him or her access to a successor. This is either called a monarchy or a dictatorship.

In any case this basic system of relations adds up to create the world we exist in today, of various states that do exist because they have successors(haven’t destroyed themselves yet), and are generally too powerful or inconvenient to be conquered.

(I am continually amazed at how closed minded people are to a small set of view points on the issue of what constitutes liberty, and options as to assume that any solution can justify the imposition by the state of that solution’s problem to any given problem upon the entire population.)
It is in fact when the state attempts to protect you from yourself that the state itself becomes the tyranny to human liberty.
Those of us who are not willing to do whatever it takes to defend freedom from any Tyranny will be and indeed Should be themselves dammed to lose it!
User avatar
Monorprise
Opponent
 
Posts: 4469
Joined: Feb 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby Monorprise » Jul 23, 2008 1:05 am

jimbobjoeray wrote:It’s funny because I’ll take a lot of heat over this on these boards, but I always thought the “concept” of communism was perfect… but I just don’t think it can ever be done right. You will always have people who abuse the power they are given, and as a result, the incentives people need to excel in life dry up and hard work goes down the tubes too.

It is sad, because I agree that “done right” communism is the closest thing to Utopia that could exist… you just can’t do it right due to human nature. A mix of systems is best IMHO.

To be quite honest I don’t understand What Marx is trying to get at, you cant have a system of government that functions on the basis of an environment that do not exist.
Either a government is build to deal with human nature or it stops working.
Either a PC Operating system is designed to work with the PC's hardware or it stops working.

Capitalism in its truest form Lazafair is the basic operating math of the universe. You can't get something for nothing, and you shouldn’t wait energy (effort) doing something unless their is some kind of clear advantage or gain for you doing it, that justifies the cost of doing it.

My main problem with the concept of communism and socialism aside form the fact that it doesn’t appear to have been designed to work with human beings, is that it is a huge infringement upon individual freedom and self-determination.
By subjecting such to the oppressive and often ill-relevant informed dictates of a majority.

Theoretically Capitalism, properly and trustfully imposed with out the interference of government or invasion of monopolistic Group goal manipulation, would achieve the same goals thou competition. Only allow the individual to control it thou demand side selection, and dynamically allocate resources accordingly, while permitting the individual to pursue his or her dreams on the micro scale.

The problem is People are cheaters, people will do anything and everything they can possibly think of to advance their own situation, including but not limited to organizing with others to take advantage of others not organized.

HMO’s would work better than the state’s care on the simple basis that YOU the individual have the liberty to chooses from different HMO’s, but still your basically talking about buying into a complete healthcare plan with limitations in cost set by the HMO managers not you. This is better than the general system which due to the Wide spread of insurance has No limitations or selections on cost set at all.(insurance will general be compelled to pay it one way or the other, and thus you will general be forced to pay it one way or the other) thus creating a situation where any healthcare services has a monopoly, provided doctors(who also don’t know cost) chooses to uses it.

It was when I figured this out, that I remembered what McCain said about Fixing healthcare cost, referring to having the cost posted, which now finally makes sense as a viable partial solution. Thou a complete solution would still require the fixing to personal accounts, as to motivate the individual to do price shopping, and thus provide an incentive for price competition. (Because your going to pay the price either way) as far as I know McCains suggestion doesn’t go this far.
But ounces this is done, over time, with competition people will come to a more realistic balance of healthcare cost with regard to their means, and the cost will come down, and cheaper options are made available, and allowed for the individual him or her self to chooses for him or her self what they believe in, and what they want to invest in.

Such as it was 60 years ago.

Socialism is evil in that it makes the basic assumption and requirement that the State must make all theses choices and imposes its will upon the people.
Those of us who are not willing to do whatever it takes to defend freedom from any Tyranny will be and indeed Should be themselves dammed to lose it!
User avatar
Monorprise
Opponent
 
Posts: 4469
Joined: Feb 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby dittbubbles » Jul 23, 2008 1:33 am

Socialism IMO is more about propping up the proletariat, so that they may have certain "freedoms" like access to higher education and health services, or be more involved with democracy/government. There are certain things that poor people can just not do without resources. I think it is rather unfair to call someone "free" when they must spend all their time and energy in putting food on the table. Setting a basic standard of living is not a bad thing IMO and if done smartly can help advance the human society upwards by moving the base standards slowly upwards. This is the power of civilization itself, collectivism is inevitable, as civilizations compete with one another.

Especially in todays world. People are no longer "limited" to live where they were born, travel is abound. They can travel to places where there is more offered to them. This might be twofold for both socialism and capitalism, those that are poor will be attracted to a place with higher standards of living, those that are looking for riches will be attracted to those places that offer it. Seems to me like America/Canada offers both. That is we live in a hybrid capitalist/socialist countries, to varying degrees of course. I think this is natural and that socialism can be brought in small doses where a stable democracy exists. Communism certainly cannot exist by revolution, by redesign, by violence or by hatred. I think "socialism" as "being controlled by the government" is a false dichotomy - the people ARE the government in a democracy.

I am certainly for providing health care to all, regardless of wealth, status, or income, on compassionate grounds (as well as economic - it is beneficial to the economy to keep the working classes healthy). The rest I'm not so sure. I don't think "human nature" is a good excuse for why communism doesn't work. I think it doesn't work, in its purity, because of nature itself. I hate to bring this into the conversation but the most free market out there is "evolution".

I think that under a complete framework of communism it sets up a virtual reality/nature where anything can live and survive and reproduce, void of any competition or struggle. I just don't think such a thing is possible, beneficial, or even desirable.

These are just my opinions, please do not tear me down, i'm just spinning my wheels for the sake of it ;(
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v725/canadapantsman/Communist20Party.jpg[/img]
User avatar
dittbubbles
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Jul 21, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby Monorprise » Jul 23, 2008 1:53 am

dittbubbles wrote:Socialism IMO is more about propping up the proletariat, so that they may have certain "freedoms" like access to higher education and health services, or be more involved with democracy/government. There are certain things that poor people can just not do without resources. I think it is rather unfair to call someone "free" when they must spend all their time and energy in putting food on the table.

In that case I would have to point out that almost all life on earth is Not "free", and that human civilization it self is not "free"
dittbubbles wrote: Setting a basic standard of living is not a bad thing IMO and if done smartly can help advance the human society upwards by moving the base standards slowly upwards.

Who are you to define what is "smartly" or "upwards" for me or anyone else?
dittbubbles wrote: This is the power of civilization itself, collectivism is inevitable, as civilizations compete with one another.

If that is how you define Civilization, then I would have to say Civilization is the enslavement of mankind to the will and directive of other men. And thus in itself is un-American. Actually I and I think most other people don’t define civilization in such a way. But rather the voluntary, self-determined, self-interested, collective interactions and trade of a large body of humans, specifically commutations and trade, upon relatively common usually self-defined bounty.
This basic definition is reinforced by the fact that many civilizations thou out history don’t have signal governments enforcing its will upon collective populations.
For example: western civilization, Maya civilization, early Greek civilization, ect…
Refer to the concept of: Spontaneous order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order
Those of us who are not willing to do whatever it takes to defend freedom from any Tyranny will be and indeed Should be themselves dammed to lose it!
User avatar
Monorprise
Opponent
 
Posts: 4469
Joined: Feb 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby jimbobjoeray » Jul 23, 2008 1:38 pm

Mono:
I think as far as Government monopolies go for Socialized things like roads, health care, etc the best method is what we call Crown corporations. These are government run “businesses” where the government is a silent partner. They are run like corporations by private individuals, but any profits they make go to the people to lower the cost of what they pay for the service. I think an even better way would be to have 2 or 3 “Crown Corporations” that “compete” for the service. So for example half of Ontario should have its roads built by one, and half by the other. Then you get the measurement of what is best. On top of that, everything that is socialized in Canada or the US “competes” with other nations socialized versions. So for example, if we have bumpy crappy roads, but the US has better ones at a cheaper tax rate, we need to improve to compete (the same as your military point).

I also disagree with your contention that Social Security Pensions “don’t exist” and that you have “no hope of ever seeing the 15% of your income they take for it. There are at least a couple of generations of Americans that would disagree with you on that point. Even today it is not as bad off as people make it. As long as the treasury bills it is backed by do even “moderately” well (4-5% range), Social Security is well funded for almost the next century.

Capitalism, like ditbub says, can no more survive in its pure form then Socialism. People always get too greedy, and wealth always flows too heavily to the rich class that are the real “capitalists”. On top of that, the rich class starts life with a stacked deck. They need not do any real work, and can simply get rich off of having money. Where as the other 99% of people have to claw for everything they get. That is why the government has had to regulate capitalism better, to ensure the working class doesn’t revert to the conditions that existed prior to the 1940’s.

We have had talks on Unversal vs private healthcare, and I don’t with to rehash it here. But I do believe that healthcare is a prime candidate for socialization simply because EVERYONE will eventually need it. Whether you socialize the whole thing, or just basic services is the question. Canada’s system was made to just provide the basics, but has slowly morphed into more. I’m not sure which socialized form is better since both have good points.

As for your quote “Socialism is evil in that it makes the basic assumption and requirement that the State must make all theses choices and imposes its will upon the people.” The same can be said for any political system. What you miss with socialism is that the PEOPLE run the government, and when it becomes more economical to socialize a service like roads, the people vote for it. It isn’t the government telling anyone what to do. It is just market economics saying “hey, doing this via the public is much better and cheaper then allowing private industry to handle it”.

Dittbub:
I totally agree with your ideal that a standard of living needs to be set. Without it you get the class structures that existed in Feudal Europe where 90% of the people are basically slaves to feeding themselves and nothing more. It is detrimental to EVERYONE, including the rich class because in a society like that, no progress is made because 90% of people aren’t producing anything more then self-sustenance.

I think that in itself is THE best argument for partially socialized systems like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Without it, society as a whole stagnates because the population at large is useless, forced to spend every waking hour simply putting food on the table, rather then getting an education and curing cancer, or putting a man on the moon.
"Illogical people have no place in debates, they belong in a world of magic gnomes"
Debate Prof, UWO
User avatar
jimbobjoeray
 
Posts: 824
Joined: May 22, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby dittbubbles » Jul 23, 2008 3:35 pm

Monorprise wrote:
dittbubbles wrote:Socialism IMO is more about propping up the proletariat, so that they may have certain "freedoms" like access to higher education and health services, or be more involved with democracy/government. There are certain things that poor people can just not do without resources. I think it is rather unfair to call someone "free" when they must spend all their time and energy in putting food on the table.

In that case I would have to point out that almost all life on earth is Not "free", and that human civilization it self is not "free"
Well, OK you'd be wrong then?
dittbubbles wrote: Setting a basic standard of living is not a bad thing IMO and if done smartly can help advance the human society upwards by moving the base standards slowly upwards.

Who are you to define what is "smartly" or "upwards" for me or anyone else?
I haven't defined either, and I don't. What is "smart" and "upwards" is the system that outlasts the rest.
dittbubbles wrote: This is the power of civilization itself, collectivism is inevitable, as civilizations compete with one another.

If that is how you define Civilization, then I would have to say Civilization is the enslavement of mankind to the will and directive of other men. And thus in itself is un-American. Actually I and I think most other people don’t define civilization in such a way. But rather the voluntary, self-determined, self-interested, collective interactions and trade of a large body of humans, specifically commutations and trade, upon relatively common usually self-defined bounty.
This basic definition is reinforced by the fact that many civilizations thou out history don’t have signal governments enforcing its will upon collective populations.
For example: western civilization, Maya civilization, early Greek civilization, ect…
Refer to the concept of: Spontaneous order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order
The Rule Of Law is a keystone of civilization, whether ruled by a king or benevolently by democracy. Civilization since antiquity has largely been a brutal dictatorship, with some exceptions along the way. I totally disagree that going way back people did NOT enforce their will upon others. Slaves and serfdom were quite prominent. Are you saying that `forced order`is only a modern creation since Stalin and communism? Everywhere was spontaneous order UNTIL the USSRÉ
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v725/canadapantsman/Communist20Party.jpg[/img]
User avatar
dittbubbles
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Jul 21, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby Monorprise » Aug 05, 2008 1:49 am

dittbubbles wrote:
Monorprise wrote:
dittbubbles wrote:Socialism IMO is more about propping up the proletariat, so that they may have certain "freedoms" like access to higher education and health services, or be more involved with democracy/government. There are certain things that poor people can just not do without resources. I think it is rather unfair to call someone "free" when they must spend all their time and energy in putting food on the table.

In that case I would have to point out that almost all life on earth is Not "free", and that human civilization it self is not "free"
Well, OK you'd be wrong then?

there are 2 basic functions that naturally consume pretty much all the time of all life on earth: 1: Survive, 2: reproduce.
Survival requires you get food and avoid being food or being killed by something else.
Reproducing is a great deal complex in its requirements and variable.

Theses 2 basic functions consume pretty much all the time of all life on earth. In fact Leisure time or fun as you would but it, is ether the act of resting (conserving energy) or the act of training( learning and practicing survival/reproducing skills). That's why our brain tells us things are fun, and that's why our brain tells us resting is nice. Some species are colonial, subservient to a ridge colony structure, others are more individual. All of them have the same basic goal, survival and spend natural pretty much all of their time trying to achieve it.
Its not a fair compilation, its not a nice competition, its life!

dittbubbles wrote:
dittbubbles wrote: Setting a basic standard of living is not a bad thing IMO and if done smartly can help advance the human society upwards by moving the base standards slowly upwards.

Who are you to define what is "smartly" or "upwards" for me or anyone else?
I haven't defined either, and I don't. What is "smart" and "upwards" is the system that outlasts the rest.

In that case I would refer you to Spartan constitutionalism, appose to Greek democracy.

dittbubbles wrote:
dittbubbles wrote: This is the power of civilization itself, collectivism is inevitable, as civilizations compete with one another.

If that is how you define Civilization, then I would have to say Civilization is the enslavement of mankind to the will and directive of other men. And thus in itself is un-American. Actually I and I think most other people don’t define civilization in such a way. But rather the voluntary, self-determined, self-interested, collective interactions and trade of a large body of humans, specifically commutations and trade, upon relatively common usually self-defined bounty.
This basic definition is reinforced by the fact that many civilizations thou out history don’t have signal governments enforcing its will upon collective populations.
For example: western civilization, Maya civilization, early Greek civilization, ect…
Refer to the concept of: Spontaneous order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order
The Rule Of Law is a keystone of civilization, whether ruled by a king or benevolently by democracy. Civilization since antiquity has largely been a brutal dictatorship, with some exceptions along the way. I totally disagree that going way back people did NOT enforce their will upon others. Slaves and serfdom were quite prominent. Are you saying that `forced order`is only a modern creation since Stalin and communism? Everywhere was spontaneous order UNTIL the USSRÉ

I don't pretend to clam that people have not enforced their will upon others, in fact I point that out as the basic reasons against collectivism which is the enforcing of other peoples will upon us.

I also will not dispute that there has always been some basic form of law or at least Equilibrium, whether it be imposed by a government or imposed by by the people defending themselves and their assets.(anarchy) That doesn't mean that this law or equilibrium is fair or nice, indeed it has historical involved some form slavery or outright theft from defeated by the conqueror.

This however does not relate to the basic definition of civilization which is more a cultural references to how a group of people relate and interact. Not necessarily a government one.
As illustrated by the existence of the civilizations that did not have specific governments, yet interacted as a civilization all the same.
Those of us who are not willing to do whatever it takes to defend freedom from any Tyranny will be and indeed Should be themselves dammed to lose it!
User avatar
Monorprise
Opponent
 
Posts: 4469
Joined: Feb 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby jimbobjoeray » Aug 05, 2008 1:32 pm

Mono, if all we did was survive and reproduce our society would be stagnant.
Everyone could own a very small farm, and using modern farming methods could produce enough food each year with literally about 2 hours of work a week average. Then they could procreate for the other 22 hours a day….

Our society is about progression. What the point of this thread was meant to be is that progression should not come at the benefit of 1% and detriment of the other 99%.
"Illogical people have no place in debates, they belong in a world of magic gnomes"
Debate Prof, UWO
User avatar
jimbobjoeray
 
Posts: 824
Joined: May 22, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby Monorprise » Aug 05, 2008 11:44 pm

jimbobjoeray wrote:Mono, if all we did was survive and reproduce our society would be stagnant.
Everyone could own a very small farm, and using modern farming methods could produce enough food each year with literally about 2 hours of work a week average. Then they could procreate for the other 22 hours a day….

Our society is about progression. What the point of this thread was meant to be is that progression should not come at the benefit of 1% and detriment of the other 99%.


I don't know what you mean by "progression", but your earlier statement is in reference to Technological innovation, which takes time and effort and is in presume to the same goal of advancing survival chances and ability.

To be quite frank much if not most of early human existent was spent moving slowly as before the technological tools and tricks were developed man had to do things much harder and more time intensively which took time away from invention, and innovation in technology.

We are still doing theses things our tecnolagy as simply enabled us to allcated more resuces towards the Task of innovation and presuing the goals in other ways. Not all of them particularly fruitful, but non-theless due to our prexisting innovations they are afordable. with respect to the world and competition we are currently in.

I sense hat you dotn grasp the magnatue of my statement which is a bit more broad than you realises.
When a child plays a game he likes it becase his mind thinks its training for surival, or practises.
and so really to his natural mind game time even thou it proves no real fruits is actually survival time. leisure time is the same.
My point is and was, we are creatures that spend all of our time in presute of advancing our chances of survival.
This is an attempt to describe the relative intent of the mind and people not an attempt to describe the in this case mostly irrelevance results. Games may not help you survive, and hunting and farming may go foul. But the drive to preform functions around theses basic drives is all the same in human beings.

"progression" as you seem to be implying which is really just technological advancement should and by all rights does come to the benefits of those who develop such technology and build and implement it.

Now I would agree that in most cases some of theses people tend to try to control and monopolized such technology for far too long as congress tends to let people renew pattens rather than merely securing to them for a LIMITED time as the constitution specified the same rights as to gain benefit and thus insensitive to sacrifices the time and rescues to go and develup such technology in the first place.
Those of us who are not willing to do whatever it takes to defend freedom from any Tyranny will be and indeed Should be themselves dammed to lose it!
User avatar
Monorprise
Opponent
 
Posts: 4469
Joined: Feb 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Dirty “Socialism”

Postby Americalex » Feb 09, 2012 10:03 pm

Apparently "next chance I get" is 4 years later, and the involved posters are all gone lol

Image
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec


Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron