|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:28 pm
 |
|
|
 |
God-Raped-Me One for all and all for one? If you want things done for you, then you have to do things for others. We wouldn't have homeless people, we wouldn't have children who are almost starving. We wouldn't have parents who HAVE to be away from their kids for 3 different jobs. There would be no rich and poor.
Until you get someone who figures that they could benefit better by selling their goods instead. And if that person(or those people, if it's more than one) does that, you now have a huge problem. It's called "going galt", and it's actually starting to become common in today's world because of the current situation economically, where the producers are having their hard earned funds distributed to those who do less work.
You'd also wind up seeing people who do less than they need to, because they figure they can get away with it. Eventually, you wind up with society polarized, with producers and leaches, until the producers "go galt". The only way around this is by making the group small enough and cohesive enough, and even then it's only guaranteed for a generation or at most two. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:25 pm
|
|
|
|
God-The-RapistV2.0 I'm what I like to call a Techno-Socialist. I've come to the conclusion that complete socialism is the only way to effectively ensure that the rights and freedoms of all peoples are secured in every way possible.
Any necessity for life should be free. If all peoples have a right to life then all peoples have a right to the things that are required for life. Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Entertainment.
I also feel that humans are too greedy and arrogant to properly control a system that is meant to be equal in all aspects and therefore we should try and develop a computer with a program that is specifically designed to oversee the entire country and eventually world.
The flaw with a computer program to "make things equal" is the fact that these same humans that are too greedy and arrogant to control an equal system are the ones that would have to develop and maintain the program and everything involved with enforcing it. Computer programs don't just make themselves, and they are only as good as the people that make them. Even if you managed to find a person or group of people with "pureness of heart" to make the program to begin with, if it's in place for any length of time, there are people that could later go in and corrupt it because the computer(s) would need regular maintenance just like any other machine, and of course there's a threat of hackers.
Also, one thing that supporters of socialism seem to forget is that the government will provide the bare minimum... and the minimum they give cannot be universal as different people have different needs and situations can change quickly (such as an illness). Even with an evaluation process, people can get screwed out of things that they actually need because with so many evaluations needing to be done, some vital information can easily be overlooked.
For instance, I grew up in a family of 6 (8 if you include my sister's kids). When my oldest brother tried to apply for financial aid to pay for college, they determined that my dad made too much money for assistance, despite the fact that my dad really couldn't afford college. All they did was look at how much he makes a year... not considering he was supporting 4 children, my sister's two children, and his wife... nor did they consider how much he payed for bills and car maintenance. Granted, college isn't as important as food, but this just goes to show the kind of negligence that occurs with "making things equal" systems.
Additionally, socialism encourages laziness. When some people see that they don't have to work to have everything provided for them, then they simply won't. Those that still work will not feel any motivation to work as hard because they're going to get the same rations no matter what. On top of that, knowing that the fruit of their labor won't necessarily go to someone in need will even discourage those that truly want to help their fellow man.
Certain industries will not progress and may even be shut down completely because they are deemed "not needed for the betterment of society". Those that aren't shut down will be scaled back in favor of things such as farming. Technology could end up at a standstill or even retrogressing in some branches because it is not "useful"... even though the invention of new technologies has the potential to make the production and distribution of goods more efficient.
Only if everyone is honest and hard working can socialism work. If everyone is lazy, then everyone is poor and everyone starves. The greed of the central government and the middle men could similarly cause everyone "below" them to be poor and starving. And the society will never be "equal" as the government would still have power over you and thus considered "higher" than you. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
|
|
|
|
MiroIsBored "entertainment" is not really needed for survival, it's just something people have grown accustomed to over the years.
Yes, it is.
Please in your infinite wisdom tell me of a single group of modern people (Last 6000 years or so) who survived without entertainment.
Any one will do.
MiroIsBored Technically, clothing is not needed either, but people consider it socially unacceptable to run around naked, and due to the mentality of people today, it could also be dangerous, especially for women.
Wrong, wrong and more wrong.
Clothing most definitely needed or else we would not have made it to begin with.
When it's NEGATIVE THIRTY degrees outside of my house (and it does get that cold) I'm sure as s**t not going to try and go out without three layers of clothing. Not only that working naked in field all day is not only dangerous it's stupid because of sun exposure. I mean if you want to get sunburn on YOUR genitalia be my guest but I'm going to protect myself.
Also about your whole comment about it being "dangerous" in social manner "especially for women" that's horse s**t. Women who show empowerment are not victims. Naked women INTIMIDATE men and are at LESS of a risk then those who are clothed. I have a video tape on Nudists and they have film of a woman going shopping in the middle of a city (Cleveland I think.) AT NIGHT and nothing happens to her. She claims that she does stuff like that all the time.
MiroIsBored The flaw with a computer program to "make things equal" is the fact that these same humans that are too greedy and arrogant to control an equal system are the ones that would have to develop and maintain the program and everything involved with enforcing it.
Any flaws in the system will be easily noticeable in small scale testing. This is not an issue and never will be because if someone starts receiving too much of something then you just manually alter it.
Not only that you make it under the pretenses of something else and have several people who do not have contact with each other create the different pieces of it and assemble it afterwords.
MiroIsBored Computer programs don't just make themselves, and they are only as good as the people that make them.
Which is why you should only get the best people to make it. Trusting any a*****e on the street who can code is pathetic, and stupid, and a mistake that I must say only a capitalist would make as they try to make it as cheaply as possible so that they can gain the most amount of profit.
MiroIsBored Even if you managed to find a person or group of people with "pureness of heart" to make the program to begin with, if it's in place for any length of time, there are people that could later go in and corrupt it because the computer(s) would need regular maintenance just like any other machine
Which is why you pre-screen anyone who even tires to go near the building and make treason punishable by death.
MiroIsBored and of course there's a threat of hackers.
Which is why you keep it on a closed system.
MiroIsBored Also, one thing that supporters of socialism seem to forget is that the government will provide the bare minimum
CAPITALIST GOVERNMENTS ONLY PROVIDE BARE MINIMUMS.
Get it right.
MiroIsBored ... and the minimum they give cannot be universal as different people have different needs and situations can change quickly (such as an illness).
Which is why the resources that now goes to social programs like welfare would be used for assessment committees.
And why every person would be given ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS. Minimums are different for everyone and should be distributed accordingly.
MiroIsBored Even with an evaluation process, people can get screwed out of things that they actually need because with so many evaluations needing to be done, some vital information can easily be overlooked.
This is a possibility but it's better than the system we have now that PURPOSEFULLY screws people over because it's more "profitable."
MiroIsBored For instance, I grew up in a family of 6 (8 if you include my sister's kids). When my oldest brother tried to apply for financial aid to pay for college, they determined that my dad made too much money for assistance, despite the fact that my dad really couldn't afford college. All they did was look at how much he makes a year... not considering he was supporting 4 children, my sister's two children, and his wife... nor did they consider how much he payed for bills and car maintenance. Granted, college isn't as important as food, but this just goes to show the kind of negligence that occurs with "making things equal" systems.
This is a perfect example of why the system we have now is s**t and the system I believe in is better.
MiroIsBored Additionally, socialism encourages laziness. When some people see that they don't have to work to have everything provided for them, then they simply won't.
Which is why you make laziness punishable by death.
MiroIsBored Those that still work will not feel any motivation to work as hard because they're going to get the same rations no matter what. On top of that, knowing that the fruit of their labor won't necessarily go to someone in need will even discourage those that truly want to help their fellow man.
See above.
MiroIsBored Certain industries will not progress and may even be shut down completely because they are deemed "not needed for the betterment of society".
If they're not needed, then why have them? If they are needed they have nothing to worry about.
MiroIsBored Those that aren't shut down will be scaled back in favor of things such as farming.
Because?
I see no issue right now with farming why should we need to pump more resources into it? I can go to my grocery store and literally pick up food that has been there for so long it has started rotting on the shelf. Why should this food go to waste? What is it that makes this surplus of food so hard to find?
MiroIsBored Technology could end up at a standstill or even retrogressing in some branches because it is not "useful"... even though the invention of new technologies has the potential to make the production and distribution of goods more efficient.
Like I said, if they're needed or even remotely related to something important the need not worry. Everything else just uses up resources for nothing.
MiroIsBored Only if everyone is honest and hard working can socialism work.
Which is why there would be stricter laws.
MiroIsBored If everyone is lazy, then everyone is poor and everyone starves.
Once again, which is why you make laziness punishable by death.
MiroIsBored The greed of the central government and the middle men could similarly cause everyone "below" them to be poor and starving.
They wouldn't exist. Government would be a rotating system of citizens that are never in power more than one year and have no official rights to change anything. Notwithstanding the need for improvement based on technological advances.
MiroIsBored And the society will never be "equal" as the government would still have power over you and thus considered "higher" than you.
Nope. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:57 pm
|
|
|
|
GTR, government need not be officially sanctioned. In a smaller group, you will invariably have people who wind up becoming a government, even if they're not the "official" one, due to any number of reasons. On a larger scale, government would cease to rotate when they created an artificial crisis to keep them in power longer.
Also, a socialist government is inflexible. Someone who needs certain special things to be productive and is unable to get them so they are "equal" would invariably not get what they need and so end up either dead, non-productive or sufficiently pissed so as to tear the system down or subvert it to his or her own means.
Capitalism doesn't "provide for" anything for anybody. People provide for themselves. Because of that, it's flexible and can be applied better over long term.
If you make laziness punishible by death, eventually people will leave or just plain die off. Mostly the former. Also, you better make very sure the computer building has maintenance staff who are well brainwashed, otherwise they'll influence it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:51 pm
|
|
|
|
Fact - In the united states, and in every country in the world, the "wealthy industrialists" have the greatest amount of control over natural resources and how they are spent.
This has been true for generations, and this goes all the way back to the first agricultural revolution, which could be said to be where we started to make all the really shitty choices.
Another fact to keep in mind, is that the children of these families of course, inherit power from their fathers in that they inherit the legal right to property or in a broader sense, they inherit the resources to defend that property.
In the united states, if you are born poor (American poor, of course as opposed to real poverty) your options for advancement are limited by a great many factors, including by negative externatalities as a result of the excesses of the aristocracy. The children of the wealthy will receive a higher quality of education, private tutelage, and so on. Their familiar business ties allow quick and often effortless advancement.
Wealth industrialists have been getting rich on the blood and sweat of the working class since the beginnings of civilization. In the united states, the legal system is inherently biased towards the wealthy. they get better representation, can afford to pursue legal action when they've been acted against. It is however, almost impossible to file a suit when you live below the poverty line. The very existence of insurance artificially inflates the prices of health care, making it unfordable for those living below the poverty line.
Now, I'm not saying I think socialism is a good idea, or that I think capitalism is a good idea. I'm just saying that capitalism is by no means a meritocracy. It is a vicious means of controlling a population, where the middle class is lead to believe that the poor are the enemy, the poor are lead to believe the middle class are the ideal, and the rich "wealthy industrialists" s**t on us all.
And one question, a certain Russian Jew, who spent a good deal of her early american life living off of the charity of others in subsidized housing (what a socialist concept! gasp!), really should have posed to the reader of her kitschy cautionary tale is Who Built Galt's Gultch?
Of course, this is the best of all possible worlds, Paquette. Woe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:53 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:35 pm
|
|
|
|
lazycommie God-Raped-Me You know, Robin Hood robbed people like you, and there is a reason for it. Capitalism is the worst ******** idea ever! The people who are too poor for whatever reason get to die off because they can't afford health care? It's because of people like you that North America is in a recession. "Robin Hood" didn't exist. Although I know telling a supporter of socialism to live in reality is like talking to a wall, I am compelled to say that. Also, what he did(in fiction) was more robbing government than robbing the wealthy. Also, I am not wealthy, although my economic state is improving slowly. Right now I'm around lower middle class. Also, you're full of BS when it comes to the wealthy being at fault for the recession/depression. Actually, it can be traced back to socialistic practices throughout US history, especially pertaining to the laws passed by the Dem controlled congress forcing credit lenders to give loans to those who they knew couldn't pay the loans back.
So, you're saying that it couldn't have been predatory lending on the part of financial institutions, poor management by manipulative and greedy financial managers, self-oversight and the defense of corporate interest rather the interest of the working class?
Can you cite those laws, and the corporations affected by them? I have a feeling you're referring to the Community Reinvestment Act, and if that is the case, do you think that it was a good idea for FNMA and FNMC to purchase these sub-prime loans from banks that did make them.
The majority of the companies that where responsible for the growth fo the subprime market were companies that were not under the rule of Community Reinvestment Act. I'd like you to point out where in the Community Reinvestment Act that it required any of the involved companies to make loans without making credit checks, to make loans with no money down, or to make loans to people without income?
These things happened. They were not required. Don't go blaming Jimmy Carter when it's just not true.
Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Argent, AHM are just a few of the companies who are NOT affected by the CRM. How do you explain their failure?
I'm just not sure how your logic works. You seem to be unfamiliar with the "bunch of laws" in question, and the majority of the companies that made sub-prime loans were NOT made to do so by any means.
You seem to be just spouting rhetoric. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:00 pm
|
|
|
|
Milk and Holy Water lazycommie God-Raped-Me You know, Robin Hood robbed people like you, and there is a reason for it. Capitalism is the worst ******** idea ever! The people who are too poor for whatever reason get to die off because they can't afford health care? It's because of people like you that North America is in a recession. "Robin Hood" didn't exist. Although I know telling a supporter of socialism to live in reality is like talking to a wall, I am compelled to say that. Also, what he did(in fiction) was more robbing government than robbing the wealthy. Also, I am not wealthy, although my economic state is improving slowly. Right now I'm around lower middle class. Also, you're full of BS when it comes to the wealthy being at fault for the recession/depression. Actually, it can be traced back to socialistic practices throughout US history, especially pertaining to the laws passed by the Dem controlled congress forcing credit lenders to give loans to those who they knew couldn't pay the loans back. So, you're saying that it couldn't have been predatory lending on the part of financial institutions, poor management by manipulative and greedy financial managers, self-oversight and the defense of corporate interest rather the interest of the working class? Can you cite those laws, and the corporations affected by them? I have a feeling you're referring to the Community Reinvestment Act, and if that is the case, do you think that it was a good idea for FNMA and FNMC to purchase these sub-prime loans from banks that did make them. The majority of the companies that where responsible for the growth fo the subprime market were companies that were not under the rule of Community Reinvestment Act. I'd like you to point out where in the Community Reinvestment Act that it required any of the involved companies to make loans without making credit checks, to make loans with no money down, or to make loans to people without income? These things happened. They were not required. Don't go blaming Jimmy Carter when it's just not true. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Argent, AHM are just a few of the companies who are NOT affected by the CRM. How do you explain their failure? I'm just not sure how your logic works. You seem to be unfamiliar with the "bunch of laws" in question, and the majority of the companies that made sub-prime loans were NOT made to do so by any means. You seem to be just spouting rhetoric.
Actually, I was referring to a law which was blocked by the Dems in congress during the Bush years(Sept 11 2003 was when Bush pushed for it, according to the NYT), as well as other pressures, as sourced:
here - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
here- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?_r=1
and here - http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28704/pub_detail.asp
It's interesting you bring up the CRA, though, as there are more than a few sources which would show you as in the wrong. http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html is a good one. Tell me if you want more.
It's the government's doing, as they pretty much forced subprime lending to occur due to their policies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
