Anarchy - Democracy - Communism

[Inferno]

Just curious to see how this poll turns out.

Personally I like the idea of Marxism.

[cheezdue]

Forgot what Marxism is...

[Inferno]

The idea of communism. Not the corrupted communist governments that currently exist.

[Roostervier]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

That's marxism. Also, democracy/capitalism.

[NuggetWarmer]

I would've voted Replublic if you'd have put it on there.

[Roostervier]

I would've voted Replublic if you'd have put it on there.
Most of today's "democracies" are really democratic republics anyway. A true democracy would be just that, rule (directly) by the people.

[n00b1n8R]

Funnily enough, I'm actually reading Capital and the Manifesto of the Communist Party at the moment.

I'll finish reading this before voting :P

[Roostervier]

Wait, Nugget... democracy was the closest of the choices to your preferred government. Why did you vote for Marxism? :confused:

[cheezdue]

You should put more poll choices.

[CN3089]

I would've voted Replublic if you'd have put it on there.

Republics aren't a system of government, they're just nations without a monarch. Both communist and capitalist states can be republics http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/confused.gif

[n00b1n8R]

Republics aren't a system of government, they're just nations without a monarch. Both communist and capitalist states can be republics http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/confused.gif
You can't really have a truly democratic monarchy though.
At least not one where the monarch has any real power (in which case, it's not really a monarchy, now is it?).

[klange]

Viva la commune.


Communism and Capitalism can both work equally well. The world has just had better luck implementing capitalism because no one actually wants do communism. Everyone who tries screws it up on their own...

[Heathen]

like how anarchy is going.

An Ideal that detests government wouldn't naturally vote.

[English Mobster]

I could see how Marxism could work, myself.

[ICEE]

The idea of marxism is nice, but it leaves out the little factor of human nature. Also, I don't give a crap about the people around me.

capitalism for life.

[klange]

Random but still related to the topic at hand: I've always felt the perfect society is the one in the Matrix. You can take your red pill, but I'd rather eat steak. Why the hell did they want out of the Matrix anyway?

[Pooky]

True democracy sans capitalism.

[Inferno]

The idea of marxism is nice, but it leaves out the little factor of human nature. Also, I don't give a crap about the people around me.

capitalism for life.

I can't stand capitalism because of the nauseating greed involved with it. A CEO of a company makes roughly 20x more than a standard worker. That is just so wrong in my opinion. No one needs that much money. I'm happy having a computer and internet for entertainment and having enough money to pay for food and what not. Why should one person have BILLIONS of dollars while hundreds of people live in the streets starving.

[nooBBooze]

My heart, says anarchy all the way.

I've just come to the conclusion that power _will_ lead to horrible atrocities and inhumane exploitation as can be seen everywhere around us.
And either concentrating it into the hands of just a small elite, wheter it be in a communist or democratic system, is something, that will ultimately lead us into slavery. Of course it wont feel like slavery as we will still enjoy the many technological benefits of our society but the possibly unlimited human creativity, this infinite source of art, beauty, emotion and intellect in so many ways will be castrated and crippled to be mere gear in a monstrous machine devouring our planet and billions of the less fortunate.

The problem with democracy is, that although i trust people are mature and capable enough to decide in their and their communities best interest, in order to make a decicion, one must first have some kind of information about the subject at hand. And if your only source of information is the media, wich in turn is completely in private hands and only covers a small biased part of the issues i think democarcy really is a joke.

Of course with our current society, where the indivudial is completely disconnected from an existing or non existing [in mayor urban areas for example] local community, pursuing stricly selfish goals, for an anarchistic society to work, its members have to have some degree of comunity spirit, education and decency.
But i hold one thing for true: no man, if his most basic needs of shelter, food, water and social contacts are satisfied, will kill a fellow man.

A more realistic option for a more just, humane and prosperous society would be a base-democratic socialism wich upholds the principles of humanism, but again even if it may sound harsh to some, the question of the eyes of the people, the media, is a question wich lies unresolved even in our society.
If that falls under the (way too vague) option of democracy, I'd change my vote to that.
HURF DURF IMA RAEPIN A SMURF

[rossmum]

Marxism is all lovely in theory, but humans are greedy cunts and thus it ends up failing by default, so it's out of the running. Anarchy is no good, because any two-bit fuckwit can build up power and turn it into something other than anarchy - not to mention people who are hated by the majority are going to be utterly hosed. Democracy is far from perfect, but it's the least easily exploited of the options, therefore I'd choose that every time.

[sdavis117]

Democratic Socialism/Capitalism mix is my ideal system.

[Inferno]

My heart, says anarchy all the way.

I've just come to the conclusion that power _will_ lead to horrible atrocities and inhumane exploitation as can be seen everywhere around us.
And either concentrating it into the hands of just a small elite, wheter it be in a communist or democratic system, is something, that will ultimately lead us into slavery. Of course it wont feel like slavery as we will still enjoy the many technological benefits of our society but the possibly unlimited human creativity, this infinite source of art, beauty, emotion and intellect in so many ways will be castrated and crippled to be mere gear in a monstrous machine devouring our planet and billions of the less fortunate.

The problem with democracy is, that although i trust people are mature and capable enough to decide in their and their communities best interest, in order to make a decicion, one must first have some kind of information about the subject at hand. And if your only source of information is the media, wich in turn is completely in private hands and only covers a small biased part of the issues i think democarcy really is a joke.

Of course with our current society, where the indivudial is completely disconnected from an existing or non existing [in mayor urban areas for example] local community, pursuing stricly selfish goals, for an anarchistic society to work, its members have to have some degree of comunity spirit, education and decency.
But i hold one thing for true: no man, if his most basic needs of shelter, food, water and social contacts are satisfied, will kill a fellow man.

A more realistic option for a more just, humane and prosperous society would be a base-democratic socialism wich upholds the principles of humanism, but again even if it may sound harsh to some, the question of the eyes of the people, the media, is a question wich lies unresolved even in our society.
If that falls under the (way too vague) option of democracy, I'd change my vote to that.
HURF DURF IMA RAEPIN A SMURF

I've always liked the idea of a "civilized anarchy". In which we all work towards a common goal of bettering ourselves and the people around us. But that would never happen and I know this. Human nature for the fail.

[klange]

I've always liked the idea of a "civilized anarchy". In which we all work towards a common goal of bettering ourselves and the people around us. But that would never happen and I know this. Human nature for the fail.
That's communism.

[Heathen]

No, communism is the government helping to work towards a common goal of bettering ourselves and the people around us.


Correct me if I'm wrong.


E: why has no one invented
cmiir

[FRain]

Marxism is all lovely in theory, but humans are greedy cunts and thus it ends up failing by default, so it's out of the running. Anarchy is no good, because any two-bit fuckwit can build up power and turn it into something other than anarchy - not to mention people who are hated by the majority are going to be utterly hosed. Democracy is far from perfect, but it's the least easily exploited of the options, therefore I'd choose that every time.
This.

Also, who changed it to capitalrapeism?

[klange]

This.

Also, who changed it to capitalrapeism?
Last I checked, the poll was always captialrapeism.

[Heathen]

Yup. Always was.

Biased poll.

[Syuusuke]

On paper, communism rocks.

But some people had to screw it up.

[Heathen]

damn commies

[Hotrod]

I don't know too much about this stuff, but marxism/communism is definitely the best for humanity. Everybody deserves equal rights, and deserve to have a chance to live well and be happy.

However, so far, none of that stuff has worked well, so what we have now is really the best we can get.

[Heathen]

Right, but its just human nature to not give a shit about the guy next to you.

Governments become corrupt and it all goes to shit.

[klange]

Right, but its just human nature to not give a shit about the guy next to you.

Governments become corrupt and it all goes to shit.
Which unfortunately means the only way to make communism work is to brainwash everyone. But hey, it's for their own good. It's also not good that communism came about before major advancements in automation, and that worker unions feather-bed in capitalism. The combination gives communism a bad name and makes the transition impossible.

[bobbysoon]

communism is like hive mind, right? I'm voting communism

[Inferno]

Also, who changed it to capitalrapeism?

I thought that was how it was spelled. I mean it makes sense. Industrys rape the people who work for them and the people who buy their products.

Like how I spell "Politician" as "Poli-Twoface".

[SnaFuBAR]

what happened to authoritarian/fascism??

[nooBBooze]

Which unfortunately means the only way to make communism work is to brainwash everyone. But hey, it's for their own good.

That sounds like you think the current state of our western societies and the way they psychologically influenced their populace is something genuine and natural wich i think is wrong.
What many people call "human nature" is infact heavily based on education.Merely the most basic morals and bodily functions are inherited, everything else like language, [->] thought patterns, behavour, explicit morals social interaction etc is learned from others and not necessarily "natural". This also goes for the general state of our western societies.

Do you honestly think the way this peak of psychological trickery we see in commercials, the media, movies, books, newspapers, public announcments, politics etc. and the way it deeply influences our every thought and move is part of "human nature"? Just look at your generic political speech: it's full of powerfull imagery based on tucking merely the emotional strings of the audience but -rationally speaking - mean jackshit.

Its just like in this poll. I see two very vague designations that are hardly solid enough to base a decent discussion on them without doing pages over pages of defining what they actually mean and yet people jump in on the bandwagon thinking they all mean the same when they use these words. [no offence intended].

what happened to authoritarian/fascism??

This good sir pointed it out for me: democracy/communism could both apply but it seems many americans automatically associate the term "democracy" with the ultimate good without exploring what democarcy really means. One has to keep in mind that some of the most brutal regimes were still technically democracies. Switzerland on the other hand, has a democratic system that would put those of the US and Europe to shame and where the people really have a say on pretty much anything.
Tbh, we're already "brainwashed" as it is.

[SnaFuBAR]

you also forgot islamic republic (not read islamic totalitarian state).

[kid908]

communism for me. you give them[humans] to much power they don't give a fuck cuz they think it's normal, you give them too little and they bitch their ass off about it, but they can't do anything. It's better to have a running government than a government that's not going anywhere...and did anyone notice that he put "Capitalrapeism?"

[Roostervier]

Yes, we did. Try reading the rest of the thread.

[jngrow]

Why are all of those options paired together? One's economy, the other government ( I know they are closely related, but they ARE different ). Democracy doesn't necessarily mean capitalist, etc. etc.

[Inferno]

I just grouped the closest things together because those are general associations. To be honest I don't know much about how government and politics.

RED SCARE BITCHES!

[kid908]

i find it funny how the poll colors worked out XD but those are quite closely associated.

[MetKiller Joe]

Find a better system than Capitalism, and I guarantee you will be the next Nobel Laureate.

Whine about how communism is better and I say human nature corrupts it to the core, and, if that doesn't happen, nobody gets wealthier (we just stay at the same bleak point).

Anarchy also sucks. Vikings are a great example of this. They were assholes.

Human nature cannot be trusted. The best our feable minds have been able to come up with is an incentive system, which of course isn't perfect.

Again, find a system that is better than capitalism, and you'll win the nobel prize.

[Inferno]

We should all use neural links to work as a giant hive mind. That way everyone knows how every feels about everything thus making everyone sensitive to everything they do.

Achievement Unlocked
Perfect World - 50g

BTW RED SCARE BITCHES!

edit-

You say viking are assholes but that's your perspective. Think of it from there perspective. Think how awesome being a fucking viking would be.

[MetKiller Joe]

We should all use neural links to work as a giant hive mind. That way everyone knows how every feels about everything thus making everyone sensitive to everything they do.


Then convert to Buddhism if you feel that way and become a bodhisattva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva)/arhat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arhat).


You say viking are assholes but that's your perspective. Think of it from there perspective. Think how awesome being a fucking viking would be.

Think of how awesome it would have been to be a Hitler Youth.

[Inferno]

Then convert to Buddhism if you feel that way and become a bodhisattva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva)/arhat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arhat).
MABAE I WELL!!!!1!!1



Think of how awesome it would have been to be a Hitler as a Youth.
?


edit-

In the Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist) context, a bodhisattva (Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_language): बोधिसत्त्व, bodhisattva; Tibetan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_script): བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་; Wylie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylie_transliteration): byang chub sems dpa; Vietnamese: Bồ Tát; Pali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_language): बोधिसत्त, bodhisatta; Thai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_language): โพธิสัตว์, phothisat; Japanese: 菩薩, bosatsu; simplified Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters): 菩萨; traditional Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_characters): 菩薩; pinyin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin): púsÃ*) means either "enlightened (bodhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhi)) existence (sattva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sattva))" or "enlightenment-being" or, given the variant Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit) spelling satva rather than sattva, "heroic-minded one (satva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satva)) for enlightenment (bodhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhi))". Another translation is "Wisdom-Being".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva#cite_note-0) The various divisions of Buddhism understand the word bodhisattva in different ways, but especially in Mahayana Buddhism, it mainly refers to a being that compassionately refrains from entering nirvana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana) in order to save others.
That kind of hurts to read if you know what I mean.

[Phopojijo]

Yeah... a "Hitler Youth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth)" is an actual term Wanksta -- he didn't typo and mean "Hitler as a Youth".

I seriously think we need to give a little Political Science lesson before we have any more discussions... most (actually pretty much all) of the arguments I've seen in this thread are entirely misinformed.

***Edit Line***

As for a better system than Capitalism?

Give everyone the fundamental tools to succeed (education, health care, shelter, communication, etc.) and allow them to use those tools to compete for the luxuries.

It's essentially the same thing as both Socialism and Capitalism, except:

1) Socialism assumes that everyone is equal and doesn't account for the possibility of a Capitalist abusing the system.
2) Capitalism makes everyone fend for themselves... which is bullshit because the upper-class will simply deny the fundamentals from the lower classes to ensure there's people to clean their toilets and serve them BigMacs.

[Bodzilla]

My heart, says anarchy all the way.

I've just come to the conclusion that power _will_ lead to horrible atrocities and inhumane exploitation as can be seen everywhere around us.
And either concentrating it into the hands of just a small elite, wheter it be in a communist or democratic system, is something, that will ultimately lead us into slavery. Of course it wont feel like slavery as we will still enjoy the many technological benefits of our society but the possibly unlimited human creativity, this infinite source of art, beauty, emotion and intellect in so many ways will be castrated and crippled to be mere gear in a monstrous machine devouring our planet and billions of the less fortunate.

The problem with democracy is, that although i trust people are mature and capable enough to decide in their and their communities best interest, in order to make a decicion, one must first have some kind of information about the subject at hand. And if your only source of information is the media, wich in turn is completely in private hands and only covers a small biased part of the issues i think democarcy really is a joke.

Of course with our current society, where the indivudial is completely disconnected from an existing or non existing [in mayor urban areas for example] local community, pursuing stricly selfish goals, for an anarchistic society to work, its members have to have some degree of comunity spirit, education and decency.
But i hold one thing for true: no man, if his most basic needs of shelter, food, water and social contacts are satisfied, will kill a fellow man.

A more realistic option for a more just, humane and prosperous society would be a base-democratic socialism wich upholds the principles of humanism, but again even if it may sound harsh to some, the question of the eyes of the people, the media, is a question wich lies unresolved even in our society.
If that falls under the (way too vague) option of democracy, I'd change my vote to that.
HURF DURF IMA RAEPIN A SMURF
basically this, but i'm infinitely too lazy to type up such a post.

E: Fuck, voted for the wrong option D:!

E2:

Right, but its just human nature to not give a shit about the guy next to you.

Governments become corrupt and it all goes to shit.
I disagree, It's conditioning to feel that way, not human nature.

I actually care alot about my fellow man, who ever they are and i dont need a reason to care.

E3:

Win x2
I should have read the whole thread before commenting. My thoughts Exactly mate, i'm just not quiet so elegant in putting it.

[Rob Oplawar]

Well, I voted for Obama, that makes me a socialist borderline communist, doesn't it?

[Mr Buckshot]

Capitalism/democracy but the government should not go laissez-faire (they've done it twice already). People also need to be better educated about how to spend their money and ensure they can pay loans, etc. There also needs to be more government intervention to prevent stock market collapses and all that. Basically, it's like a mother watching her kids at the playground. The kids are allowed to do what they want but if they do something stupid the mother steps in and stops it.

In Canada, the government gives more local financial aid than that of any other country in the world, which I admire as I personally know people who have benefited from it. We're capitalist/democratic too.

[klange]

As for a better system than Capitalism?

Give everyone the fundamental tools to succeed (education, health care, shelter, communication, etc.) and allow them to use those tools to compete for the luxuries.

It's essentially the same thing as both Socialism and Capitalism, except:

1) Socialism assumes that everyone is equal and doesn't account for the possibility of a Capitalist abusing the system.
2) Capitalism makes everyone fend for themselves... which is bullshit because the upper-class will simply deny the fundamentals from the lower classes to ensure there's people to clean their toilets and serve them BigMacs.

While I agree with what you're saying, I'd like to point out that most of the modern industrial nations are capable of providing a bit more than just the fundamentals to everyone, ie, in the US, we are highly capable of providing everyone with a laptop and Internet service, on top of a place to live and food to eat, and that needs to be taken into account or resources will be wasted.

The primary failures of democracy+capitalism are from public choice: if a majority of people are directly and negatively affected by something that would benefit society as a whole, it's not going to happen. Which again brings me to brainwashing...

[Phopojijo]

Or perceived negatively affected. The Drug Companies are good at that...

First step to Universal Health Care? Fix the drug companies... free to taxpayers, hurts investors a little bit, but drops the costs of medication by thousands of dollars per year for something as simple as insulin.

Like I said, investors can whine a bit... but so long as you implement it slowly, you can renormalize before any major market fluctuations occur. Path to Utopia is slow... but it's good to travel in its direction.

[klange]

Or perceived negatively affected. The Drug Companies are good at that...
Actually, I was referring to a direct and entirely real negative effect (a cost...). Like paying for other peoples' kids to go to school when you don't have any children yourself. Which is why school levies do so bad in the six states that have them. Total social benefit outweighs total social cost, but public choice theory says if more people don't have kids, society will act inefficiently.

[Mass]

I think the ultimate challenge of good government is to do two main things:

-Diffuse decision-making power so that it can include the maximum number of people, and therefore require the largest amount of stupidity before blunders occur.

-Concentrate the power to act in a unified and necessary manner so that it may be as quick and as well planned as possible.

So, while an Anarchist society would diffuse the power of decision making and make that philosophy paramount, it would not have the capability to enforce its standards or protect itself. And at the same time, a fascist society, while possessing the power to act quickly and powerfully, does not have the assurance that the decisions of the government will be in the interest of the people or that the government will act rationally and denote proper thought to a variety of issues.

I think that democracies and republics strike a good balance, allowing the people of a nation to decide in part their futures and country's future, as well as having a permanent establishment ready to act and enforce.

[nooBBooze]

Actually, I was referring to a direct and entirely real negative effect (a cost...). Like paying for other peoples' kids to go to school when you don't have any children yourself.
In theory taxes serve the common good i.e. serices and projects that are available to the public not some sort of bribery to force the government to act on your specific needs [unless they are part of the needs of the specific common good you are part of ]. You also pay taxes for roads you'll never use, buidlings you will never visit, poor people you'll never know, buisnesses you'll never frequent. Unless the "negative" effects limit themselves to missing just a few bucks to spend on more unnecessary shit, the common good will always directly or indirectly benefit the taxpayer. Given a fair system of taxation according to income and respionsible people to decide and handle the effective investments of course.

[MetKiller Joe]

Nevermind, if you care to read this fine. If you don't, that's fine too. I walked the nano-thin line of politics and got sliced. If you press the button, just remember I warned you.




Capitalism makes everyone fend for themselves... which is bullshit because the upper-class will simply deny the fundamentals from the lower classes to ensure there's people to clean their toilets and serve them BigMacs.
Let me tell you a little story:

For context, my family is... upper-middle class (we do not live like it).

My mother, who about 5 months ago established her own contract-based research company. She established her company in Lawrence 20 minutes from my house.

Lawrence is recovering from a boom that went to the toilette (to tell that story is to encourage much much more political flaming than I really care to address).

She needed workers to do things around the lab. So, she hired a helper, I'll call her Alice (though that is not her name). Alice never finished high school. She lived in a foster home for most of her life with her other 4 siblings. She lives (now) in an apartment and takes care of her brother (who recently got hired as well a this same place).

Alice was motivated and willing to learn new skills, so when the opportunity presented itself, she took it. She now helps in high-level experiments dealing with data collection, mice drug testing, and is practicing and learning to get a GED and maybe even apply to college for biology/chemistry related sciences.

Lower-classes can rise up whenever they want to. A mentally retarded person might only have the intelligence to work in McDonalds, but any other kid with half a brain should be able to get a job, go through high school, and go to at least community college (where s/he could, surprise surprise, apply to other institutions that would offer him/her a higher education).

There is a kid from Africa, many kids from Africa (not just from South Africa), that are going to Harvard, Yale, and other universities and getting better jobs to support their families in Africa.

My mother is another example of one of these kids. Not the wealthiest background, but somehow she managed to go from high school in a village to University of Zagreb to the Planck Institute in Germany, to Washington, NiH, MIT, etc.

Never underestimate what people can do. It is not your job to make sure they get the opportunities; they have to use opportunities that present themselves to the fullest. Giving them a boost makes them even more lazy/incompetent.

[Rob Oplawar]

This thread needs more drama/flaming/idiocy - well actually, i suppose it has plenty of the third.

[klange]

In theory taxes serve the common good i.e. serices and projects that are available to the public not some sort of bribery to force the government to act on your specific nee.... blah blah.
You failed to read the second half of my post saying that despite that fact, people will vote against taxes that create more benefit.

[Phopojijo]

Nevermind, if you care to read this fine. If you don't, that's fine too. I walked the nano-thin line of politics and got sliced. If you press the button, just remember I warned you.


Let me tell you a little story:

For context, my family is... upper-middle class (we do not live like it).

My mother, who about 5 months ago established her own contract-based research company. She established her company in Lawrence 20 minutes from my house.

Lawrence is recovering from a boom that went to the toilette (to tell that story is to encourage much much more political flaming than I really care to address).

She needed workers to do things around the lab. So, she hired a helper, I'll call her Alice (though that is not her name). Alice never finished high school. She lived in a foster home for most of her life with her other 4 siblings. She lives (now) in an apartment and takes care of her brother (who recently got hired as well a this same place).

Alice was motivated and willing to learn new skills, so when the opportunity presented itself, she took it. She now helps in high-level experiments dealing with data collection, mice drug testing, and is practicing and learning to get a GED and maybe even apply to college for biology/chemistry related sciences.

Lower-classes can rise up whenever they want to. A mentally retarded person might only have the intelligence to work in McDonalds, but any other kid with half a brain should be able to get a job, go through high school, and go to at least community college (where s/he could, surprise surprise, apply to other institutions that would offer him/her a higher education).

There is a kid from Africa, many kids from Africa (not just from South Africa), that are going to Harvard, Yale, and other universities and getting better jobs to support their families in Africa.

My mother is another example of one of these kids. Not the wealthiest background, but somehow she managed to go from high school in a village to University of Zagreb to the Planck Institute in Germany, to Washington, NiH, MIT, etc.

Never underestimate what people can do. It is not your job to make sure they get the opportunities; they have to use opportunities that present themselves to the fullest. Giving them a boost makes them even more lazy/incompetent.
Two points:

1) She, and they, worked much harder than say: Child of a politician.

2) She, and they, have substantially less (if lucky enough to have any) opportunities to exceed their social class than say: Child of a politician.

I'm not saying it's impossible for someone in a social class to exceed their social class... but the percent of people who can, and how hard they must work to, is the point.
I think you should rethink your opinion.

[nooBBooze]

You failed to read the second half of my post saying that despite that fact, people will vote against taxes that create more benefit.
By emphasizing the nature of taxes, i draw the conclusion that this "real" negative effect of yours, is really just based on, deliberate or not, misconseptions of the subject at hand. Because if you realize that taxes serve the public good and not specific interest of specific individuals, unless they're part of the public good, getting into a fuss because of "paying for other peoples' kids to go to school when you don't have any children yourself" is pretty much absurd.

It's pretty easy actually: create a problem based on partial perspectives on a subject, declare them to be the actual nature of the subject and then incite a discussion on how to adress this entirely artificial perversion of the issue while the vioces wondering wheter it needs to be adressed at all, just get ignored.

Also, don't tell me we're not brainwashed as it is as long as commercials, TVs, movies, games and newspapers are around.
Hurf durf btw.

[Bodzilla]

Nevermind, if you care to read this fine. If you don't, that's fine too. I walked the nano-thin line of politics and got sliced. If you press the button, just remember I warned you.


Let me tell you a little story:

For context, my family is... upper-middle class (we do not live like it).

My mother, who about 5 months ago established her own contract-based research company. She established her company in Lawrence 20 minutes from my house.

Lawrence is recovering from a boom that went to the toilette (to tell that story is to encourage much much more political flaming than I really care to address).

She needed workers to do things around the lab. So, she hired a helper, I'll call her Alice (though that is not her name). Alice never finished high school. She lived in a foster home for most of her life with her other 4 siblings. She lives (now) in an apartment and takes care of her brother (who recently got hired as well a this same place).

Alice was motivated and willing to learn new skills, so when the opportunity presented itself, she took it. She now helps in high-level experiments dealing with data collection, mice drug testing, and is practicing and learning to get a GED and maybe even apply to college for biology/chemistry related sciences.

Lower-classes can rise up whenever they want to. A mentally retarded person might only have the intelligence to work in McDonalds, but any other kid with half a brain should be able to get a job, go through high school, and go to at least community college (where s/he could, surprise surprise, apply to other institutions that would offer him/her a higher education).

There is a kid from Africa, many kids from Africa (not just from South Africa), that are going to Harvard, Yale, and other universities and getting better jobs to support their families in Africa.

My mother is another example of one of these kids. Not the wealthiest background, but somehow she managed to go from high school in a village to University of Zagreb to the Planck Institute in Germany, to Washington, NiH, MIT, etc.

Never underestimate what people can do. It is not your job to make sure they get the opportunities; they have to use opportunities that present themselves to the fullest. Giving them a boost makes them even more lazy/incompetent.

your argument is fundamentally flawed because your mum is involved in it.
She choose someone not based on her credentials to help out and give a leg up.
Where 90% of all money making company's view their employees as an asset and not a person.

[Phopojijo]

"Resource" fits a bit better.

[English Mobster]

I have an idea for a system that may work, blending Communism and Capitalism. I'm known for coming up with impossible ideas, so don't be too harsh on how it would be implemented, but I have a feeling that this would work.


Take the frame of Communism. Everyone is treated equally, everyone gets the same amount.
Add in a "Congress" of sorts, at a city, county, state, and national level.
Every citizen is asked to serve on the Congress for 2 months or so. A notice gets sent to them asking them to serve similar to the way people receive a notice for Jury duty in America. Random citizens of the city serve in the city Congress, random citizens of the County serve in the county Congress, and so on.
Every month, 3 delegates are randomly picked to lead the Congress for that month. These leaders have no extra power other than keeping the Congress in line and making sure that the debates don't go on for days without stopping. They present measures to the Congress, etc.
Once your term is up, you return to your normal life, no extended terms.
The national Congress has two emissaries from every state.
Measures and laws which are written up will be voted on first by the people and then, if it passes the popular vote, once more by the Congress of the level the law will apply to (Ex. City laws are voted on by the city Congress, county laws by the county Congress, etc.).
Even when extreme measures need to be taken, there may be no one person which can hold office for longer than their term. While I understand this does make things rather messy at times, it does keep it from turning into Communism.
No human can take the rights from another human being, UNLESS they have been tried and convicted unanimously by Jury.
The rights of all citizens are:



Right to life, justice, and property.
Right to religion, speech, and privacy.
Right to freedom and peaceful assembly.
Freedom of the Press from Governmental control.
There may be no cruel and unusual punishment or compelled self-incrimination.
No government agency may have any kind of monitoring devices or garrison inside of a citizen's home.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Bill of Rights, exactly what I wanted to say.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." U.S. Bill of Rights once more.

That's all I got... Might have more later, idk.

[Bodzilla]

look i'll put it like this, 90% of the problems we have with governments is that they view long term as a 4yr policy which fits with the elections.

see now if you then shorten that term in this idea your suggesting how will you ever get a person thats willing and able to put in foundations for a good long term health, roads, education, police force ect

[n00b1n8R]

But in mudkipz system, there's no way they'll be in for the next term, and they have no way of knowing who will be. That way, they have nothing to gain by putting out small drops of policy.

[Bodzilla]

but no incentive either.

[MetKiller Joe]

your argument is fundamentally flawed because your mum is involved in it.
She choose someone not based on her credentials to help out and give a leg up.
Where 90% of all money making company's view their employees as an asset and not a person.

I'm guessing you are talking about corporations, in which case, you are right, the person is thought of as simply labor in a statistic. People can still get an education and work there, gain experience, learn new skills, then move on to bigger and better things. Also, where did you get that statistic? The majority of all businesses are small businesses who do actually value their employees. Corporations get the majority of the wealth because they have monopoly power, so that's probably where the confusion arose.

My point still stands, being it that the story is "false" by your standards or "true" by mine, people can stand on their own two feet; they don't need to be pushed.

Also mud's theory would work great until he'd have to start choosing people that were mentally fit enough to run congress (not just anybody can).

[Phopojijo]

I'm guessing you are talking about corporations, in which case, you are right, the person is thought of as simply labor in a statistic. People can still get an education and work there, gain experience, learn new skills, then move on to bigger and better things. Also, where did you get that statistic? The majority of all businesses are small businesses who do actually value their employees. Corporations get the majority of the wealth because they have monopoly power, so that's probably where the confusion arose.

My point still stands, being it that the story is "false" by your standards or "true" by mine, people can stand on their own two feet; they don't need to be pushed.

Also mud's theory would work great until he'd have to start choosing people that were mentally fit enough to run congress (not just anybody can).A person, not any given person. And that's where the problem lies: some people have it easier than others by gross orders of magnitude. A lot of people will *never* get opportunities in their life... period.

[MetKiller Joe]

A person, not any given person. And that's where the problem lies: some people have it easier than others by gross orders of magnitude. A lot of people will *never* get opportunities in their life... period.

Now my question to you is: where do you get your statistics from?

Do you assume that every homeless person has never had a chance? That a tribal child in Africa has never had a chance (or does he even care)? And again, life is unfair, but it isn't your job to correct people's lives (what if they like it that way) or give them opportunities. You can help people mostly by teaching them. If you give a man food for the day, they will starve the next, but if you teach a man to fish he will be full for the rest of his life.*


I don't base my hypotheses on my experience because it is very biased. I base it on what I've read and understood as well as what I've been taught in various social science classes.

*I think Mother Theresa or one of the many saints said this.

[Phopojijo]

Here's a start:
Children who die before age of 5 is over 25% in one country, many more ~20%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_%282005 %29)

Do they have chances to succeed? They can't even remain alive o.O

You can't tell me a 2-year-old died because they didn't strive hard enough for healthcare.

Want a little more Western statistics?

In the UK, a country even with good Healthcare... infanty mortality rates are 1.5x higher for a lower-class citizen than an upper class citizen (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?vlnk=664).

So... that's where I get er... some... of my statistics. The UN, CIA, and Gvt. of England.

Also

And again, life is unfair, but it isn't your job to correct people's lives (what if they like it that way) or give them opportunities. You can help people mostly by teaching them.That's the point... giving them an education and the fundamentals required to make their own choice. Someone is perfectly allowed to give up all their possessions and live as a bum on the side of the street.

You won't see anyone debate that choice in life is a good thing... except Barry Schwartz (http://www.locallytype.com/2007/03/13/why-too-much-choice-can-be-a-bad-thing-barry-schwartz/)... but he was talking about salad dressing...

Unless it's the choice of those around you... apparently. Which brings us back to "people to serve you Bigmacs"

[MetKiller Joe]

Here's a start:
Children who die before age of 5 is over 25% in one country, many more ~20%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_%282005 %29)

Do they have chances to succeed? They can't even remain alive o.O

You can't tell me a 2-year-old died because they didn't strive hard enough for healthcare.

Want a little more Western statistics?


So, you are attributing Children who die before the age of 5 to a discussion dedicated to political views and how Capitalism is flawed? Or am I mistaken (no sarcasm just want to know). You are right, I can't blame a two year old for not trying to get health care. I can blame their government's policy and I can also blame the numerous rare diseases that happen in 1st world countries as well as the 3rd world. Pre-mature birth, alcoholic parent, oxygen allergy, suffocation, labor related complications, and the list goes on. But of course, I'm sure that these are very small percentages. I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, bad things happen.

Secondly, in the UK you have a system which is partly socialist in nature. The health care system depends much on need and triage. It is a free (or mostly free) system. Any product or service which is free is always demanded (and practically never satiated), which means there will never be enough of it. Therefore a shortage occurs, so if you don't like the fact that babies are dying then consult your politicians. Ironically, the system that makes the triage system possible is called "NICE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICE)".

In countries like Africa, even more horrible things happen. People die from the common cold, HIV, Ebola, and other really horrible things. It is too bad that the dictators of these countries could not give a damn about their people. As long as they receive some kind of funding (mostly from loans from World Bank and other charitable organizations), they can keep hoarding.

[Phopojijo]

So, you are attributing Children who die before the age of 5 to a discussion dedicated to political views and how Capitalism is flawed? Or am I mistaken (no sarcasm just want to know).Since you were referring to foreign countries having opportunities in a discussion dedicated to political views and how Capitalism is flawed... yes.


Secondly, in the UK you have a system which is partly socialist in nature. The health care system depends much on need and triage. It is a free (or mostly free) system. Any product or service which is free is always demanded (and practically never satiated), which means there will never be enough of it. Therefore a shortage occurs, so if you don't like the fact that babies are dying then consult your politicians. Ironically, the system that makes the triage system possible is called "NICE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICE)".The US is even worse off... (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/mort-o18.shtml)


The US was behind every developed country in North America, Western Europe, and Australasia, as well as Cuba, Hungary, Israel, and the Czech Republic.
In countries like Africa, even more horrible things happen. People die from the common cold, HIV, Ebola, and other really horrible things. It is too bad that the dictators of these countries could not give a damn about their people. As long as they receive some kind of funding (mostly from loans from World Bank and other charitable organizations), they can keep hoarding.Yeah but that's Capitalism for you o.O Take advantage of your opportunities.

Btw...


And again, life is unfair, but it isn't your job to correct people's lives (what if they like it that way) or give them opportunities. You can help people mostly by teaching them.That's the point... giving them an education and the fundamentals required to make their own choice. Someone is perfectly allowed to give up all their possessions and live as a bum on the side of the street.

You won't see anyone debate that choice in life is a good thing... except Barry Schwartz (http://www.locallytype.com/2007/03/13/why-too-much-choice-can-be-a-bad-thing-barry-schwartz/)... but he was talking about salad dressing...

Unless it's the choice of those around you... apparently. Which brings us back to "people to serve you Bigmacs"You ignored all this.

[MetKiller Joe]

The US is even worse off... (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/mort-o18.shtml)

Yes, we need to have regulation of private health-care institutions. Also, which other 28 other countries?

I'm guessing that these companies are unregulated oligopolies. They have some monopoly power. The reason is that we as citizens or the people that represent us said "XYZ" about the US's standards on what a private company should be (think the Grading system for Beef same kind of system of high standards). Therefore, in order for one of these firms to be profitable they need to have a lot of money. If they don't have this money, the price gets transmitted to the customer. If the customer can't afford health insurance, then the company cannot be nice and say "Oh ok we'll accept you!" because if they did that they'd have to do it for everybody. Then if they did that they'd be broke and be able to serve nobody. That or you can have a system that deals out health-care evenly like in communism (but what if you have a cancer patient or a dying baby? Or maybe a year where infants are dying by the thousands?), or something like in England where people are still getting untreated because a central committee has to deal out money (which is DAMNED inefficient).


Yeah but that's Capitalism for you o.O Take advantage of your opportunities.Do you know what capitalism is? If you are going to give me a definition please use yours, without looking anything up.

Dictators are tyrants they operate under totalitarianism.



Btw...
You ignored all this.
Yes, you agreed with me. Unless I misunderstood?

[Phopojijo]

Do you know what capitalism is? If you are going to give me a definition please use yours, without looking anything up.How about I use your definition:

they have to use opportunities that present themselves to the fullest.



That's the point... giving them an education and the fundamentals required to make their own choice. Someone is perfectly allowed to give up all their possessions and live as a bum on the side of the street.Yes, you agreed with me. Unless I misunderstood?If you agreed with me that the fundamentals should be socialized than why are we arguing?

[MetKiller Joe]

If you agreed with me that the fundamentals should be socialized than why are we arguing?Yes, but who says that I wanted government to be involved in education (to tell you the truth, I find that most education systems here in the US are crap (my local town high school is falling apart because the town, with two tax overrides, could "not afford" a better contractor; the education there is also not the greatest (and this isn't what you'd call a poor town). Meanwhile, many private schools that I know are operating just fine and they are driven by capitalism.; socialized education is great, but you need to pay a good chunk of your income to the government [that includes the "middle" and "lower" classes]).


How about I use your definition:
Never underestimate what people can do. It is not your job to make sure they get the opportunities; they have to use opportunities that present themselves to the fullest. Giving them a boost makes them even more lazy/incompetent.That is my philosophy, not capitalism.

Also, where is the word "capitalism" in there? Or are you just assuming?

[Phopojijo]

Yes, but who says that I wanted government to be involved in education (to tell you the truth, I find that most education systems here in the US are crap; socialized education is great, but you need to pay a good chunk of your income to the government [that includes the "middle" and "lower" classes]).Actually the point of taxes for socialized services is to normalize the wealth so that the middle and lower classes can afford services like Fire, Police, Health, Education, etc. Soooo if the lower classes didn't have it... they would have worse access, not better.

Since you like stats (in spite of not actually using statistics yourself)...


"In almost every state, shortfalls in health are greatest among children in the poorest or least-educated households, but even middle-class children are less healthy than children with greater advantages. Within each racial or ethnic group, a steep income gradient is evident. Children's general health status improves as family income increases."


That is my philosophy, not capitalism.

Also, where is the word "capitalism" in there? Or are you just assuming?And you've been defending Capitalism for the last couple of pages now...

Yeah this is getting silly...

[MetKiller Joe]

Actually the point of taxes for socialized services is to normalize the wealth so that the middle and lower classes can afford services like Fire, Police, Health, Education, etc. Soooo if the lower classes didn't have it... they would have worse access, not better.


Tax the wealthy who control the wealth, that is reflected in prices. That's right, taxes are a dis-incentive for corporations to do good things (like make goods without using labor in different countries), it also makes them lay off people.

If I gave you a billion dollars, would you still advocate taxes for the wealthy?


Since you like stats (in spite of not actually using statistics yourself)...
So, you are telling me that Joe the accountant deserves more health-care benefits than somebody who has worked harder and taken more risks than he has and therefore has come to a better position. So, you are punishing those who work more (or have skills that Joe the accountant does not have)? Why should they do anything for you (comes back to my point about taxes)?



And you've been defending Capitalism for the last couple of pages now...

Yeah this is getting silly...OK, first, you never gave me your definition.
I think that you avoiding my question is silly.

[Me KS]

Here's my take on all of this.

I'm not the person who's done a ridiculous amount of research on all forms of government and can pretty much provide limitless evidence for my points. So correct me if I'm wrong (on facts, not opinions).

Well, I definitely do not support communism in any way. I'm glad members here at least realize that communism implemented in today's world is basically just a government forcing communism on to its people, usually with the people being equally poor and helpless.

I know this for a FACT because my parents were born and lived in Cuba for 30 years, and they know for a fact what these communist governments of today do. Anybody who thinks Cuba is doing all right, I suggest you seriously re-think your opinion, because there's more than enough evidence to prove you wrong. Downright wrong. That's one thing you can't argue with me against. Cuba is in horrible poverty, the "free" health care is horribly inadequate, and the "great" education is only good so that the government can brainwash their kids with Castro's propaganda, and at the same time be distracted from doubt of their government with studies.

And yet, before the Cuban revolution in 1959 under the so-called "horrible" dictator Batista, everything was significantly better than now. Batista may have been your usual corrupt dictator, but he allowed capitalism and he gave people a lot more rights than they have now. In fact, Cuba's economy was booming the 50's! There were just as many American cars in Cuba as there were in the US, and at one point the Cuban Peso was actually worth 1.5 US dollars. Now, the Cuban peso is worth about one US cent.

Know how Castro managed to convince Cubans Batista was so terrible? Massive propaganda. Lots of it. All lies. And anybody who likes Che Guevera is horribly misguided. Che, by direct orders, shot 4,000 innocent people in the head by execution squad or himself merely for disagreeing with the revolution. He's the moral equivalent of Hitler, yet people dare to glorify him. It's disgusting.

However, I still fully believe that communism even in its ideal form still won't work. Communism is basically everyone being exactly equal in property, wealth, etc. Well, if that happens, then won't the people just be a bunch of clones? No different amount of wealth, property, nothing? There wouldn't be an incentive to work, because a lazy person who doesn't work or do anything for himself would have the same amount of money as the person who works day and night trying to find a purpose in life. So, what's the purpose in achieving a goal in life if you have to be just like everyone else?

So, communism, no.

Anarchy is self-explanatory. Without any government, people's rights will obviously be violated by those who are greedy and don't give a crap about others. That's even more extremist than communism.

So, in the end, democracy and capitalism is my choice. Capitalism satisfies our human nature, because you get what you work for. Simple as that. Democracy, although not directly, does satisfy the will of the majority.

No government is perfect, but so far, democracy and a capitalist economic system is the best in my opinion.

And here's a moral note I'd like to add. There are some people who whine and complain about how terrible a country the US is, and how capitalism is a failed economic system, and how communism is the ideal form of government, etc.

Yet, most of these people are too damn spoiled to even think about what they're saying. I mean, these same people probably live in a decent house, with heating and air conditioning. These same people probably have cell phones, computers, laptops, stereos, iPods, etc. These same people have so many benefits of living in the US, yet they whine and complain about the place where they live, as if it's torturing them or something.

I suggest these same people move to Cuba, where they can have their "communism", their "equality", and whatever other crap they preach. I guarantee you they wouldn't even last a week, and they'd be begging to come back to the US.

All I'm saying is, of course you have the right to your opinion, but just shut the hell up and be grateful for whatever government or economic system you live in, because you have no idea what it truly is to be suffering.

I'm grateful to be living in the land of the free, and I'm not afraid to say it. I'm actually proud of my country, the place I live in. Apparently, not many people are, and it saddens me.

[Needles]

Democracy. I have a russian friend that supports communisum.

[Bodzilla]

It's pointless arguing against phopo Metkiller Joe.

The mother fucker knows what he's talking bout. Best quit while your behind.

[SnaFuBAR]

Democracy. I have a russian friend that supports communisum.

really? because i have a friend who came straight from russia, and he says it's (communism) fucking stupid.

[MetKiller Joe]

madkiller, of Russian descendant or immigrant?

[blind]

Democracy. I have a russian friend that supports communisum.
Change your avatar, I keep getting excited because I think Veegie is here :mad:

[Needles]

madkiller, of Russian descendant or immigrant?
Both. His parents were Russian and he was born in Russia.

[Needles]

Change your avatar, I keep getting excited because I think Veegie is here :mad:
I added a Christmas hat...

[Apoc4lypse]

screw politics, I am my own country...

Just because I don't go around killing people/stealing just means I actually have morales.

As long as it follows my code of morales based on common sense, idc what you do, and the gov. can go fuck itself.

Leagalize. plz not even addicted, I'd just love to be able to have fun with my friends and not have to look over my shoulder or worry all the fuken time.

My friend was explaining to me how drug users are a new form of slavery. Ridiculous punishments for drug use with ridiculous ammounts of community service... I could understand the idea that drug users are viewed as destructive or unconstructive people to society, but canabis isn't one of those drugs, it might make u a little unproductive but thats why u don't just do it 24/7 its recreational...

I'm currently facing the possibility of losing my license because they found .1 of a G on my passenger seat that my friend accidentally spilt in my car when we were smoking. The CDS charge for marijuana is ridiculous. I can understand its supposed to prevent trafficing of narcotics, and more dangerous drugs to protect people, but marijuana doesn't even hurt you. Not to mention my currently family situation doesn't lend itself to the convenience of them taking away my license.

My dad has parkinsons, and he has trouble driving, my sister doesn't have her license yet, and I don't have a Mom anymore, I'd almost sue them for emotional damages. Not to mention my other friend was in the car, and he has 2 previous charges, and this is fukin with his situation so hes pissed at me along with a bunch of his friends, I have to go to court and claim the stuff... claim less than 1/10 of a gram, its ridunkulous.

New Jersey sux... Cali Colorado and Mass know what there doing... this sort of shit should be decriminalized... .1 of a G are you fuken serious. FFS that could have floated into my car via air currents with the windows open its so small.

E: I am in no way saying smoking is good, I'm just saying its not as bad as it is currently made out to be, cig's have a higher chance of killing you. I also do not condone the use of more radical drugs, those are damaging. Weed is safer than cig's other than the fact u have to worry about the fuken law.

/rant... I hate politics, and I hate most governments. The whole idea of governing needs to be rethought as well as the way our society works because, it obviously isn't working. Too many people get put in jail, too many people are poor, too many people are homeless,too many people starve, and no one recieves help, a little of there lucky. Currently its like "your on your own, get your self out of that shit". I mean I guess it makes sense, you get your self into it you get your self out, but its also a heartless selfish way of dealing with other peoples sufferings. The only help there is are small organizations dedicated to helping them, but thats not enough, our society as a whole needs to work torwards helping them instead of looking the other way on top of a pedistal. Its like people who refuse to be your friend if u smoke marijuana. (I've seen it happen a few times, and its freakin retarded) I was the last of my friends to start smoking anything... if u cant handle having friends who smoke, you have alot of growing up to do, don't judge people based on your own assumptions.

[n00b1n8R]

Change your avatar, I keep getting excited because I think Veegie is here :mad:
lol who's veegie??

[MetKiller Joe]

.

[Disaster]

lol who's veegie??
The guy who made that avatar :eng101:

[nooBBooze]

Appearantly, every western country would be able to grant their citizens a guaranteed income that would allow them to enjoy basic housing, all necessary groceries and clothing with no additional impact on their economies whatsoever as long as [by then] unessary government support is reassigned. Guaranteed income for all citizens would create an unimaginable social mobility, prosperity and creativity although there's obvious problems keeping it from ever becoming reality like greedy ass politicans/buisnesmen and global poverty and the immigration caused by it [not a bad thing tbh but too much too soon, is too much too soon] would also require a change in foreign policy and internal regulation.
Treid to figure out some witty Obama reference here but politics tend to get me depressed.

[MetKiller Joe]

So, if I got everything that I needed via the government, which is funded by my taxes, why should I work? If I don't work, this standard decreases until you can barely live.

This is why there were mass starvations in communist Russia.

The guarantee is extremely short-term, and also, why should a person who has worked all their life to attain what they have support a deadbeat who is not willing to work?

[nooBBooze]

So, if I got everything that I needed via the government, which is funded by my taxes, why should I work? If I don't work, this standard decreases until you can barely live.

Well the idea is that you really just get everything you need to sustain a dignified life and the means to mantain [healthcare] and improve on it [education] but nothing more.
So incentives to "work" in terms of benefitting your community and get paid for it would be the pride of having made something out of oneself thus gaining social prestige and accses to luxury items and services[entertainment].

Since man is not designed to remain in stagnation, doing nothing/the same thing all day long, I can really see how this could work although -especially in the initial stages- cases of "abuse" cannot be excluded but people _will_ get tired of sitting on their asses all day long. Wheter they get up and work for money or just spend their time creatively in pursuit of personal and/or spiritual evolution, wich can be sped up significantly or even incorporated into a paid work, is really their decision.
And that's how I would define freedom.



This is why there were mass starvations in communist Russia.

No.

[bobbysoon]

Capitalism is inefficiency. Competitive companies trying to outdo each other, when they could be working together to make a better product that's landfill resistant. And the spam. Fucking spam. What a waste of effort, and the general public's attention span

[Roostervier]

Capitalism is inefficiency. Competitive companies trying to outdo each other, when they could be working together to make a better product that's landfill resistant. And the spam. Fucking spam. What a waste of effort, and the general public's attention span
I don't get what you're trying to say. If the companies worked together, what would be their motivation to get their products out faster, and to make them better? People are greedy by human nature, they would have virtually no motivation. If the companies competed with each other, their products would have to be made and developed faster and of a higher quality in order to stay in business and to make a profit. Their motivation if they compete? Money. And since it's human nature to be greedy, that's plenty enough motivation. Capitalism encourages and accelerates innovation.

[Me KS]

I don't get what you're trying to say. If the companies worked together, what would be their motivation to get their products out faster, and to make them better? People are greedy by human nature, they would have virtually no motivation. If the companies competed with each other, their products would have to be made and developed faster and of a higher quality in order to stay in business and to make a profit. Their motivation if they compete? Money. And since it's human nature to be greedy, that's plenty enough motivation. Capitalism encourages and accelerates innovation.

Exactly. As human beings, we still have our animal instincts of needing to have our own possessions: territory, food, conveniences, you name it. Most of us are willing to work for these things if needed. Capitalism works on the basic principle of satisfying human nature: you can get whatever you want, as long as you work for it and have earned it.

Now, some people think that this is an outright lie, that capitalism only works for the rich man and leaves the poor man to suffer. Answer this question: do rich people pull money out of a hat? Do they magically attain it? Not so much. They work for it. Capitalism succeeded for them because they got what they worked for.

On the other hand, there are many of the poor who suffer under Capitalism. Many like to argue that that is absolutely unacceptable and that these people have "obstacles" in their path to becoming successful. Let me tell you something: they sure as hell have a lot more work to do to succeed than you and I as average middle-class people, but there are no obstacles. Any poor person, with the right motivation and a positive attitude, could go out there and seek a job, and slowly work their way up the ladder. Of course, the reason why this hardly happens is because these people have mentally boxed themselves into thinking that they just can't succeed. It's self-destruction. As long as they think that way, they won't get anywhere.

And so, here come the outspoken individuals who say that poor people need to have government aid in order to be able to pass these so-called "obstacles". The people that support this claim that is necessary for the equality of the people. I think not. While the poor person gets a welfare check from the government for doing absolutely nothing, the rich man is forced to pay thousands more in taxes to pay for the poor man doing nothing while he is busy managing an entire business as his life job. Fair? Equality? Please. Not even close. You want real equality in the tax system? Charge the same percentage of income tax for everyone. That way, nobody can complain, as they're truly equal. The point of this being: while the middle class man has to work to get money, the poor man gets money regardless of whether he works or not. That's not equality.

People have a misconception that it is government's job to serve the people. No. Government's job is to protect your rights and provide you services which protect those rights. The fireman is there to protect your right to life in case of a fire. The police man is there to protect your right to life in case of a crime. The military is there to protect everyone's rights to life from a foreign power. Etc. However, your right to economic freedom is being interfered by the government when it forces you to hand over money to give out for free. In a way, the government reduces your rights in doing that. Nonsense.

People seem to not understand the difference between voluntarily helping out the poor and forcibly helping out the poor. Under this tax system, we either pay our taxes to help the poor or get arrested. Not so pleasant. Yet, charity organizations, donating money, and whatever other acts like that are perfectly acceptable because it's your money that you've earned and you are volunteering to give it away for a good cause, not because you're forced to. They are two entirely different concepts.

People also have a hatred for big corporations, and indeed, almost any sort of business. Well, put it this way: few people would have a job if it wasn't for big corporations and businesses in general. Chances are your job is working for a business. No business, no jobs, no economy.

Anyways, got a little sidetracked there. Point is, capitalism fundamentally works for the system of give and take. I put my effort into helping contribute to a business, which is what they want, in return I get money, which is what I want. This money I then use to purchase something from yet another business, where this works in reverse. I give them money, which is what they want, and I get my product, which is what I want. Capitalism provides for a win-win situation that satisfies our human nature. So simple, yet so misunderstood.

[legionaire45]

American Democracy whilst leaning a bit to the left for policy.

Regarding economics matters, I think that socialistic/progressive policies are in order.

Meh, politics.