collectivism & individualism

[Darkdale]

That doesn't mean they'll be more for them to do. If you allow a completly unplanned system of education, with everyone wanting to succeed as much as possible, you will see more and more people taking university degrees in media studies and less and less people learning how to do things like plumbing. We're seeing it already. The more you encourage people to act purely for their own self interest, the more they will flock to where the money is. Unfortunately, the money is all in professions proving luxuries and services, not simple goods. Self interest would lead us to collapse, as we try to keep economies going without anyone working to keep basic raw materials coming in,

Not at all. There will be a huge market out there for better plumbing, better machines, better tools, better technologies of every kind. Besides, if there is a lack of people wanting to be plumbers, the cost of their services will go up and there will be more money in it for whoever wants to do it. The market can deal very well with self-interest. It doesn't deal well with constraints.

Self-Interest is a virtue in my book, because it doesn't have to be exclusive. Part of being intelligent is knowing how to work mutual benefit. Learn to share. Learn to trade. Learn to work hard for what you want in life, while treating others with respect and fairness. I don't quite understand when people began associated self-interest with greed, but the whole idea that selfishness is bad is laughable to me. The idea that I should have to live my life for others is absurd and I won't do it except out of my own free will. I choose to live my life for my friends and family, but for everyone? lol hell no. I'm my own man.

Just curious, where did you develop your economic perspective? It's very different from my own and I'd love to read what you have read so that I can better understand where you are coming from.

 

[Darkdale]

Screw education? Screw education? Stop putting words in my mouth. And don't fall for the old belief that you could never have a liberal communist society; stop looking at examples in the past, stop nit-picking the times socialism was overthrown, and instead look at the present and realise that capitalism is failing people this very moment.

Capitalism isn't failing people. People are failing themselves. Capitalism is an economic system that puts out what you put in. That's why education is so important. People need the knowledge and skills necessary to create opportunity for them to put in, so that they can get out. I won't live in a liberal communist society. I'll take up arms and fight to the death to stop it. So would a lot of Americans. (I guess that's why you want our guns eh? You won't get them.)

 

[Æsahættr]

Not at all. There will be a huge market out there for better plumbing, better machines, better tools, better technologies of every kind. Besides, if there is a lack of people wanting to be plumbers, the cost of their services will go up and there will be more money in it for whoever wants to do it. The market can deal very well with self-interest. It doesn't deal well with constraints.

Yes, I can see that you would like Thatcher. Am I right in thinking that you believe that a trickle-down economy works?
Your idea that the market would force up the money available to jobs with less money results in a circular system. Jobs with less money available get less people interested in them. With less people in those jobs, the cost of services/goods goes up, so there is more money available, so more people come along. Eventually, with lots of people doing those jobs, the money available goes down. The cycle will then repeat itself. You're right. The market can deal with self-interest. The market does a wonderful job at keeping an economy stable over a long period of time. But a stable economy over a long period of time isn't necessarily all that is needed. How long would these cycles take? Well, it would mean that people would have to notice the extra money available in those jobs, then choose to look into them rather than other things at universities for example. So the cycles would take certainly several years. What does that mean for people who get caught out in the low parts of the cycle? People for whom the money begins to go down just as they have a child coming maybe? It's not enough that the problem is eventually corrected. We can not allow a system that harms people at any stage. And of course you are against the use of welfare to correct such a problem.

Self-Interest is a virtue in my book, because it doesn't have to be exclusive. Part of being intelligent is knowing how to work mutual benefit. Learn to share. Learn to trade. Learn to work hard for what you want in life, while treating others with respect and fairness. I don't quite understand when people began associated self-interest with greed, but the whole idea that selfishness is bad is laughable to me. The idea that I should have to live my life for others is absurd and I won't do it except out of my own free will. I choose to live my life for my friends and family, but for everyone? lol hell no. I'm my own man.

Well I'm not going to attempt to change your philospohy on life, though I disagree with it. If you are without a sense of social responsibility, that you feel you have no responsibilities to anyone in the world apart from those you know personally, then I personally find that attitude detestable but it's your right to have it.
Incidentally, I am all in favour of sharing but not trading. Trading for me is very different from sharing. Sharing means 'I am going to help you undonditionally.' Trading is 'I will only help you if you help me.'

Just curious, where did you develop your economic perspective? It's very different from my own and I'd love to read what you have read so that I can better understand where you are coming from.

I can't point you at a single book which will enlighten you on my economic perspective. I have developed it over many years, from many inputs and from my own conclusions. I expect a large part of the difference between us is a difference between political opinion in America and Britain. You would be very hard pressed to find many people in Britain who would want to abolish the welfare system for example. I may be able to offer you more insight if you specify which parts of my economic perspective in particular.

 

[Darkdale]

Yes, I can see that you would like Thatcher. Am I right in thinking that you believe that a trickle-down economy works?
Your idea that the market would force up the money available to jobs with less money results in a circular system. Jobs with less money available get less people interested in them. With less people in those jobs, the cost of services/goods goes up, so there is more money available, so more people come along. Eventually, with lots of people doing those jobs, the money available goes down. The cycle will then repeat itself. You're right. The market can deal with self-interest. The market does a wonderful job at keeping an economy stable over a long period of time. But a stable economy over a long period of time isn't necessarily all that is needed. How long would these cycles take? Well, it would mean that people would have to notice the extra money available in those jobs, then choose to look into them rather than other things at universities for example. So the cycles would take certainly several years. What does that mean for people who get caught out in the low parts of the cycle? People for whom the money begins to go down just as they have a child coming maybe? It's not enough that the problem is eventually corrected. We can not allow a system that harms people at any stage. And of course you are against the use of welfare to correct such a problem.

See, I can follow you up until the point I highlighted in bold. We can allow a system that harms people at various stages. I think it is perfectly reasonable to do so. And welfare doesn't correct the problem. It lessens the burden. It also hurts the economy by requiring more taxes and is often coupled with more restrictions on the growth of capital. Taxing capital is like taxing jobs themselves. The more capital we have, the more investment we have and the more we'll have to produce and consume (thus more jobs).

But, you are right. My economic philosophy doesn't protect everyone. It even hurts some innocent people (people that try hard, but just get screwed by the system). If you don't think that civil and economic liberties are worth that risk, then socialist economics really are a better choice, though I think you'll find that it's a downward spiral. That is not to say that it can't be made to work. I just don't believe that its' benefits have been greater than it's hurts.

Well I'm not going to attempt to change your philospohy on life, though I disagree with it. If you are without a sense of social responsibility, that you feel you have no responsibilities to anyone in the world apart from those you know personally, then I personally find that attitude detestable but it's your right to have it.
Incidentally, I am all in favour of sharing but not trading. Trading for me is very different from sharing. Sharing means 'I am going to help you undonditionally.' Trading is 'I will only help you if you help me.'

What do you find detestable?

what is wrong with, I will help you if you help me? That's mutual benefit. Everyone wins.

 

[Ernesto]

Capitalism isn't failing people. People are failing themselves.

Right, firstly, this is the most common mistake people make when analysing capitalism in action. Growing up in a capitalist world, you are instantaneously forced into whichever class you were born in, which is far from fair and equal. People may fail themselves, yes, but only because of the poor standards capitalism has happened to throw up for them, only because they have been thrown into the marketplace to fend for themselves against any immoral threat which might come their way.

Capitalism is an economic system that puts out what you put in. That's why education is so important. People need the knowledge and skills necessary to create opportunity for them to put in, so that they can get out.

But what good is an economic system which 'puts out what you put in' when it still means that a lot of people get much less than they need, despite their level of education? How is 'putting out what you put in' better than 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'?

I won't live in a liberal communist society. I'll take up arms and fight to the death to stop it. So would a lot of Americans. (I guess that's why you want our guns eh? You won't get them.)

Of course a lot of Americans would; that's merely because a lot of Americans are so indoctrinated into their world they were born in - a greedy, capitalist world - that they don't have the mental capacity to dream of anything else. And the same is true for other people around the globe, not just America. I think the reason America has a particular paranoia of communism is because they fear anything which at least vaguely opposes democracy, but I'm sure a lot of communists would agree that democracy is better than some systems of order...

Oh, and about "I guess that's why you want our guns eh? You won't get them.)"
WHAT?!!? If you are talking about the English wanting your guns, you're wrong, we don't want them, we're happy having a lower crime rate. If you mean communists wanting your guns, you're wrong again. I can't begin to comprehend what you even mean by that, it's most obscure.

 

[Darkdale]

Right, firstly, this is the most common mistake people make when analysing capitalism in action. Growing up in a capitalist world, you are instantaneously forced into whichever class you were born in, which is far from fair and equal. People may fail themselves, yes, but only because of the poor standards capitalism has happened to throw up for them, only because they have been thrown into the marketplace to fend for themselves against any immoral threat which might come their way.

But it isn't capitalism throwing them into a bad situation. It's their parents. The parents are responsible for that, not the economic system.

But what good is an economic system which 'puts out what you put in' when it still means that a lot of people get much less than they need, despite their level of education? How is 'putting out what you put in' better than 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'?

Each according to their ability, to each according to their need is one of the few "evils" I've encountered in my life. It's a philosophy of theft and greed. It's the philosophy of looters. A system that puts out what you put in makes each individual responsible for themselves. It is a philosophy of self-reliance, liberty and responsibility. You see, what you want requires force. It requires you to take from the few to give to the many. It's stealing. Socialist Democracy may be inevitable when the mob realizes it can use the government to steal the wealth of the economic elite, but that doesn't make it right. It's still immoral.

Of course a lot of Americans would; that's merely because a lot of Americans are so indoctrinated into their world they were born in - a greedy, capitalist world - that they don't have the mental capacity to dream of anything else. And the same is true for other people around the globe, not just America. I think the reason America has a particular paranoia of communism is because they fear anything which at least vaguely opposes democracy, but I'm sure a lot of communists would agree that democracy is better than some systems of order...

The greedy are the socialists. That capitalists only want what they can earn, they want what their work produces, or its' equal in wealth. The socialists want what they have not earned. They want to own the minds and effort of others. Isn't that greed? Capitalists want to keep what they've earned and Socialists want what others have. Capitalism is selfish, but socialism is greedy. I'm not afraid of communism. I hate communism. I refuse to live under it. I refuse to give others a right over my mind and effort.

Oh, and about "I guess that's why you want our guns eh? You won't get them.)"
WHAT?!!? If you are talking about the English wanting your guns, you're wrong, we don't want them, we're happy having a lower crime rate. If you mean communists wanting your guns, you're wrong again. I can't begin to comprehend what you even mean by that, it's most obscure.

Democratic Socialists & Communists have to take away the guns of the people if they are going to force them to give up their individuality to the collective. Otherwise, people like me will start killing people lol. It's not just socialists though. It's tyrants and theocrats. You think if Christian Conservatives started telling me that I had to live under their religion that I wouldn't fight just a hard as I would against communists who want the state to own me and my labor? I believe in freedom and capitalism as moral imperatives.

 

[Æsahættr]

See, I can follow you up until the point I highlighted in bold. We can allow a system that harms people at various stages. I think it is perfectly reasonable to do so.

Why? I thought you said that you believed that education was a good way to reduce poverty. i've explained why education alone would sometimes leave people in poverty, if they were caught in the cycle of money in a cetain profession, regardless of how well trained they were to do that job. Either poverty is bad or it isn't. If you're against poverty, then you can't say that you're satisfied to stick with a system that will always put some people into poverty, even if it does pull them out after a few years.

And welfare doesn't correct the problem. It lessens the burden. It also hurts the economy by requiring more taxes and is often coupled with more restrictions on the growth of capital. Taxing capital is like taxing jobs themselves. The more capital we have, the more investment we have and the more we'll have to produce and consume (thus more jobs).

To be honest, I am happy to sacrifice some economic growth to even out the balance a bit. If a few people are in poverty in a country, that is far more important than how fast everyone else's wealth is growing. Happiness doesn't come from wealth purely. Making people richer doesn't make them any happier if everyone else is getting happier as well. It has been proven. Incidentally, did you look at those links I provided earlier as evidence that inequality is a major cause of depression and ill health?

But, you are right. My economic philosophy doesn't protect everyone. It even hurts some innocent people (people that try hard, but just get screwed by the system). If you don't think that civil and economic liberties are worth that risk, then socialist economics really are a better choice, though I think you'll find that it's a downward spiral. That is not to say that it can't be made to work. I just don't believe that its' benefits have been greater than it's hurts.

Civil liberties are not harmed in any way at all by socialism. Economic liberties are of minor importance as far as I'm concerned. I'm far more interested in people's happiness, and the way that the worst off in society live. Economic liberties are a luxury that can only be afforded if no-one is harmed.

What do you find detestable?

what is wrong with, I will help you if you help me? That's mutual benefit. Everyone wins.

What is wrong with it is if one person can't help another. If we operate by trade alone, then those who have nothing will always have nothing, because they have nothing to trade to get what they want. I believe that trust is far better. If we can get to a society where one person can give someone else something, with the trust that if they need that person to give them something in the future, they will. But if they made a trade agreement, such that the first person gives the second person something with an agreement that the second person will give the first person something back in return in the future, then if the second person is unable to return the future, they are still held to the agreement. They may be let off, but then that is changing the nature of the agreement from trade to charitable giving.

Again, please do look at those links and tell me your thoughts on them.

 

[Æsahættr]

Capitalism is an economic system that puts out what you put in.

Just emphasising the point I just made. This quote sums it up. Capitalism puts out what you put in. If you are unable to put much in, you're screwed. Being unable could be because you are born in a very poor area, you could be disabled in some way. Note that I am not saying that everyone who is disabled or born in a poor area will not do as well as everyone else, but it could be a reason why one person doesn't do well regardless of what effort they put in. Another consequence of the system is that people who are "better" intellectually or physically will do better. There is no reason why one person should give a better life than someone else because they happened to be born with more natural gifts.

 

[Darkdale]

Why? I thought you said that you believed that education was a good way to reduce poverty. i've explained why education alone would sometimes leave people in poverty, if they were caught in the cycle of money in a cetain profession, regardless of how well trained they were to do that job. Either poverty is bad or it isn't. If you're against poverty, then you can't say that you're satisfied to stick with a system that will always put some people into poverty, even if it does pull them out after a few years.

Education can be a huge help, but it isn't a failsafe. You still have to allow people to make their own choices and that means allowing them to make bad economic decisions (such as credit debt and closing the doors of economic opportunity). I'm not against poverty at all costs. We need an education system that gives everyone an equal amount of knowledge and skill so that people will have the chance to get themselves out of the hole their parents have put them in or to overcome bad luck, bad choices or old oppressions (such as slavery). America should be ashamed of how bad the schools are where the people need good schools the most.

To be honest, I am happy to sacrifice some economic growth to even out the balance a bit. If a few people are in poverty in a country, that is far more important than how fast everyone else's wealth is growing. Happiness doesn't come from wealth purely. Making people richer doesn't make them any happier if everyone else is getting happier as well. It has been proven. Incidentally, did you look at those links I provided earlier as evidence that inequality is a major cause of depression and ill health?

No I didn't look at those links, but I believe them. Still, We'fare and Socialism are not the solution. Individual freedom is more important than a perfect economy.

Civil liberties are not harmed in any way at all by socialism. Economic liberties are of minor importance as far as I'm concerned. I'm far more interested in people's happiness, and the way that the worst off in society live. Economic liberties are a luxury that can only be afforded if no-one is harmed.

Civil Liberties can be harmed by socialism. Tolerance and diversity can be a nasty business when forced upon the people by an oppressive government.

What is wrong with it is if one person can't help another. If we operate by trade alone, then those who have nothing will always have nothing, because they have nothing to trade to get what they want. I believe that trust is far better.

Everyone has something to trade: Work.

If we can get to a society where one person can give someone else something, with the trust that if they need that person to give them something in the future, they will. But if they made a trade agreement, such that the first person gives the second person something with an agreement that the second person will give the first person something back in return in the future, then if the second person is unable to return the future, they are still held to the agreement. They may be let off, but then that is changing the nature of the agreement from trade to charitable giving.

I see where you are coming from, but you are operating from the perspective that need creates right. That is someone needs something, they have a right to it. I don't believe in that philosophy, which is why we'll keep coming to different opinions. I come at things from a place of liberty, where the most important thing is securing civil, political and economic liberties. We've got to have them all, or we sacrifice the one thing that's not worth living without. Freedom.

I don't disagree with your facts about poverty, depression and inequality. I just think Education (not welfare and socialism) is the best tool to use. We can do it without limiting economic liberties and by creating more economic opportunities for all.

 

[gnomon]

Education can be a huge help, but it isn't a failsafe. You still have to allow people to make their own choices and that means allowing them to make bad economic decisions (such as credit debt and closing the doors of economic opportunity). I'm not against poverty at all costs. We need an education system that gives everyone an equal amount of knowledge and skill so that people will have the chance to get themselves out of the hole their parents have put them in or to overcome bad luck, bad choices or old oppressions (such as slavery). America should be ashamed of how bad the schools are where the people need good schools the most.



No I didn't look at those links, but I believe them. Still, We'fare and Socialism are not the solution. Individual freedom is more important than a perfect economy.



Civil Liberties can be harmed by socialism. Tolerance and diversity can be a nasty business when forced upon the people by an oppressive government.




Everyone has something to trade: Work.



I see where you are coming from, but you are operating from the perspective that need creates right. That is someone needs something, they have a right to it. I don't believe in that philosophy, which is why we'll keep coming to different opinions. I come at things from a place of liberty, where the most important thing is securing civil, political and economic liberties. We've got to have them all, or we sacrifice the one thing that's not worth living without. Freedom.

I don't disagree with your facts about poverty, depression and inequality. I just think Education (not welfare and socialism) is the best tool to use. We can do it without limiting economic liberties and by creating more economic opportunities for all.

First I must apologize for my rudeness in the other thread.

I agree with all this but I'm wondering if a major overhaul of the education system itself would be better for society. I'm talking about matriculation at an earlier age. A higher emphasis on the sciences and less emphasis on world literature. An increase in trade schools and doing away with the liberal arts aspect of the core required by full term university degree programs.

It seems that in the past human beings had to learn about their world and the ability to survive and work within it at an earlier age. Modern America treats humans like children too long.

I'm not sure but listening to the hurdles a friend of mine had to go through to enter a good nursing program and the amount of time spent waiting on a list seems like such a waste of resources. As it is now the capability of humans is downplayed by our current system.

p.s. - I hate it when I put a response in the wrong forum. Most of this thought came over from the private schooling thread.

 

[Æsahættr]

Education can be a huge help, but it isn't a failsafe. You still have to allow people to make their own choices and that means allowing them to make bad economic decisions (such as credit debt and closing the doors of economic opportunity). I'm not against poverty at all costs. We need an education system that gives everyone an equal amount of knowledge and skill so that people will have the chance to get themselves out of the hole their parents have put them in or to overcome bad luck, bad choices or old oppressions (such as slavery). America should be ashamed of how bad the schools are where the people need good schools the most.

Education doesn't give everyone an equal amount of knowledge and skill. Some people are born with a higher natural intelligence than others. Some are born naturally stroner than others, or naturally faster. Denying this fact, and hoping that everyone will somehow be evened out by education to the point where we can pit everyone against one another in competition, confident that those that work the hardest will come out on top, is ridiculous.

No I didn't look at those links, but I believe them. Still, We'fare and Socialism are not the solution. Individual freedom is more important than a perfect economy.

Did you get the point of the links? A major factor of depression is seeing yourself at the bottom of the social-economic pyramid. Inequality causes depression. Individual freedom hasn't nothing to do with this problem. Being individually free doesn't stop you from being depressed because you have less money than most people. Do you or do you not agree than in a good society people should be happy? If you agree, then you must agree that equality is a necessary aspect of society. It doesn't mean it's the only necessary aspect, but it can't be ignored.

Civil Liberties can be harmed by socialism. Tolerance and diversity can be a nasty business when forced upon the people by an oppressive government.

If the government oppresses people, then they get voted out. You are saying basically that sometimes a socialist government takes away people's civil liberties. That's true. And sometimes a right-wing government takes away people's liberties. Democracy is not always present on either side of the political spectrum, neither is it unique to either side. Assuming we are both in favour of democracy, we will assume that your ideal society that you are trying to advocate is democratic, as is mine. So I am in favour of socialism that is voted for by the people, not pushed on them by the government.

Everyone has something to trade: Work.

Not everyone can offer the same abilites in work, regardless of the education they receive. Does someone who is completly paralysed have work to trade?

I see where you are coming from, but you are operating from the perspective that need creates right. That is someone needs something, they have a right to it. I don't believe in that philosophy, which is why we'll keep coming to different opinions. I come at things from a place of liberty, where the most important thing is securing civil, political and economic liberties. We've got to have them all, or we sacrifice the one thing that's not worth living without. Freedom.

Don't assume that I'm against freedom. From my point of view, in some ways I am more of an advocate of freedom than you, because I believe that someone who is unable to thrive in a capitalist economy is not free. Someone who is born with less intelligence than someone else is less free in a capitalist economy, because they are more constrained by their natural abilites, in comparison to someone else. We are all advocates of freedom.
Also, do you mean that you are completly against the idea of need creates right? So you think that no-one even has a right to water say, unless they work for it? Again, what do they do if they are unable to work?

I don't disagree with your facts about poverty, depression and inequality. I just think Education (not welfare and socialism) is the best tool to use. We can do it without limiting economic liberties and by creating more economic opportunities for all.

Summing up once more, education can not create complete equality. Do you really believe that if you had had Shakespeare's education, you could have written his plays? That if you'd had Einstein's education you could have had such a large impact on science? That is in no way intended as a slur on your intelligence. I certainly wouldn't make those claims. Some people are born lucky, with more abilities than others. With good fortune should come responsibility to help those who are less lucky.

 

[Darkdale]

I agree with all this but I'm wondering if a major overhaul of the education system itself would be better for society. I'm talking about matriculation at an earlier age. A higher emphasis on the sciences and less emphasis on world literature. An increase in trade schools and doing away with the liberal arts aspect of the core required by full term university degree programs.

Well, I think trade schools shouldn't begin until students are 16 years of age. I think 16 year old should be able to opt out of their high school at 16 and go to publicly four year trade schools. (yeah, real libertarian of me, I know. I suck).

It seems that in the past human beings had to learn about their world and the ability to survive and work within it at an earlier age. Modern America treats humans like children too long.

Quite true and what is worse, we live in a culture that teaches children that they are not responsible for their choices. They are told to blame their parents, their society... anyone but themselves. They are stripped of perspective. Now, all this comes from a good place, which is, we are not 100% responsible for our decision-making skills or our perspective. Our environment does have an effect. But children need to be taught the ability to use their free will and choice to overcome the negative effects on them. The best way to do this is through hard education. Once children realize that they can learn the most difficult aspects of science and math, they will feel empowered. History, philosophy and the liberal arts present a context for what they can do with that power. So we need them, but science and math are extremely important. It teaches us how to think objectively and deliberately.

 

[Darkdale]

Education doesn't give everyone an equal amount of knowledge and skill. Some people are born with a higher natural intelligence than others. Some are born naturally stroner than others, or naturally faster. Denying this fact, and hoping that everyone will somehow be evened out by education to the point where we can pit everyone against one another in competition, confident that those that work the hardest will come out on top, is ridiculous.

Oh, well of course natural inequalities can't be "fixed" by education, but why in the world would I want them to?

Did you get the point of the links? A major factor of depression is seeing yourself at the bottom of the social-economic pyramid. Inequality causes depression. Individual freedom hasn't nothing to do with this problem. Being individually free doesn't stop you from being depressed because you have less money than most people. Do you or do you not agree than in a good society people should be happy? If you agree, then you must agree that equality is a necessary aspect of society. It doesn't mean it's the only necessary aspect, but it can't be ignored.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. No. Poverty is a cause of depression, but it is not the only cause. Many wealthy people are depressed and they are at the top rung. Again, you are justifying action based on needs.

A. People in poverty can suffer from depression
B. Depression is bad.
C. Society has a responsibility to prevent all bad things from happening.
Therefore, Society has a responsibility to end poverty.

The incorrect premise is 'C'. Society doesn't have a responsibility to prevent all bad things from happening, because that would be complete affront to liberty. Most of the bad things that happen to us are our own fault. We make choices based on fear, anger, envy, frustration and ignorance and these are all causes of bad things and bad circumstances; and when people continue to suffer form their negative choices, many times they become depressed. We cannot as a society go around trying to solve people's problems for them. What we can do is teach people independence and self-reliance, so that we can help people help themselves. That is where education comes in. Public Education exists to help people help themselves.

The hypocrisy is, but doesn't welfare do the same thing? The answer is no. Welfare isn't teaching people to do anything. In fact, it allows people to do nothing. It makes them dependant. It also makes many people feel ashamed and depressed and helpless.

If the government oppresses people, then they get voted out. You are saying basically that sometimes a socialist government takes away people's civil liberties. That's true. And sometimes a right-wing government takes away people's liberties. Democracy is not always present on either side of the political spectrum, neither is it unique to either side. Assuming we are both in favour of democracy, we will assume that your ideal society that you are trying to advocate is democratic, as is mine. So I am in favour of socialism that is voted for by the people, not pushed on them by the government.

Don't confuse me too much with the "right wing". I make that mistake all the time too. You are absolutely right about democracy. Democratic Socialism is freely chosen by the people. Just as Democratic Capitalism is freely chosen. That's why we have so much invested in politics. The people can strip themselves of liberty just as easily as a tyrant. But Socialism is theft, it strips us over our economic liberty. Just as Christian Conservatives would love to strip us of many of our civil liberties (and have). Just as communists would strip us of our political liberties (and do in the nations they control).

Not everyone can offer the same abilites in work, regardless of the education they receive. Does someone who is completly paralysed have work to trade?

Someone who is paralysed can't work unless they have a great deal of knowledge.

Don't assume that I'm against freedom. From my point of view, in some ways I am more of an advocate of freedom than you, because I believe that someone who is unable to thrive in a capitalist economy is not free.

How are they not free?

Someone who is born with less intelligence than someone else is less free in a capitalist economy, because they are more constrained by their natural abilites, in comparison to someone else. We are all advocates of freedom.
Also, do you mean that you are completly against the idea of need creates right? So you think that no-one even has a right to water say, unless they work for it? Again, what do they do if they are unable to work?

So your real problem is with nature? With natural inequalities and individuality?

Summing up once more, education can not create complete equality. Do you really believe that if you had had Shakespeare's education, you could have written his plays? That if you'd had Einstein's education you could have had such a large impact on science? That is in no way intended as a slur on your intelligence. I certainly wouldn't make those claims. Some people are born lucky, with more abilities than others. With good fortune should come responsibility to help those who are less lucky.

There are a lot of things I'm not smart enough or skilled enough to do and there is nothing I can do about that. But, I can do what I'm good at, so I study to learn to do that. What's the problem? Are you saying that we should be envious of the people that are born "better"? And we should, as a society, share in the goods their natural abilities have helped create? That seems pretty dark and sinister. I'll assume that isn't what you are saying.

 

[Æsahættr]

Someone who is paralysed can't work unless they have a great deal of knowledge.

Most of the bad things that happen to us are our own fault.

Ok, I want to focus on this point. If someone is paralysed then it is not their fault (assuming they were paralysed by a condition rather than an accident, not that an accident would necessarily be their fault, I'm just being careful). You admit that they will not be able to work unless they have a great deal of knowledge. They are therefore instantly at a major disadvantage to other people in doing well in life, for no reason of their own. Yet you would chuck them into the competition with no welfare to help them? What if they also have a learning disorder? This is clearly now a very unlucky person, but it is not an impossibility. How do you treat someone who is paralysed and has a learning disorder in your ideal society?

How are they not free?

Freedom means you can make a choice. Someone who is in abject poverty is not as free as you or me. They don't have as much choice in their lives. If you point a gun at someone's head we would agree they are not free. Neither are you completly free if you have the threat of starvation hanging over you. You are not free to enjoy your life as much as other people.

The hypocrisy is, but doesn't welfare do the same thing? The answer is no. Welfare isn't teaching people to do anything. In fact, it allows people to do nothing. It makes them dependant. It also makes many people feel ashamed and depressed and helpless.

When I made a claim that inequality causes depression, I backed it up with evidence. If you want this argument that using welfare causes depression, I suggest you find some evidence too. Indeed, you will need to proove that the depression caused by using welfare outweights the depression caused by the extra poverty without that welfare. If it does not outweigh it, then your argument against welfare is irrelevant.

Don't confuse me too much with the "right wing". I make that mistake all the time too. You are absolutely right about democracy. Democratic Socialism is freely chosen by the people. Just as Democratic Capitalism is freely chosen. That's why we have so much invested in politics. The people can strip themselves of liberty just as easily as a tyrant. But Socialism is theft, it strips us over our economic liberty. Just as Christian Conservatives would love to strip us of many of our civil liberties (and have). Just as communists would strip us of our political liberties (and do in the nations they control).

I'm afraid you're making some more mistakes. First of all, you're assuming that all communists are in favour of the taking of political liberties. I call myself a communist, and I would fight vermently to defend my political liberties against anyone who would try to take them. If you give someone something, it is not theft. Socialism is where the people give the government some of their economic liberties in exchange for more equality. If they don't see enough rise in equality, they can protest, or unelect the government. If they decide they want their economic liberties back, they just elect a new government. If they can't wait until the next election, then in a democratic country, enough public protest can force change.
Economic liberty means that the people can do what they want with their money. Economic liberty comes directly from political liberty. If people choose to give their money to the government, then they are exercising their economic liberties, not stripping themselves of them.

So your real problem is with nature? With natural inequalities and individuality?

Individuality is not lost from equality. I do not want to genetically alter everyone to have the same abilties. What is "natural" is not always what is best. Inequality is the basis of survival of the fittest, which is a very good system, but has no grounding in morals. Only humans can introduce morality. Richard Dawkins has said that while he spends his life looking at evolution and the process of natural selection, it does not mean that he thinks it is a good idea. He believes that we should be fighting the process of natural selection. I agree with him. Because we are all different, we all have something different to contribute to society. That is where we express our individuality.

There are a lot of things I'm not smart enough or skilled enough to do and there is nothing I can do about that. But, I can do what I'm good at, so I study to learn to do that. What's the problem? Are you saying that we should be envious of the people that are born "better"? And we should, as a society, share in the goods their natural abilities have helped create? That seems pretty dark and sinister. I'll assume that isn't what you are saying.

As you say, there are a lot of things that you are not smart or skilled enough to do. So is it fair that people who can do those things, simply because they were born with the ability to do them, should get a better deal out of life than you? We should not be envious of people. But yes, we should share in the goods that we create. In a family, people share in the goods that are produced. What is so fundamental about a family? You can justify the family connection if you simply go with what is "natural," because you can claim that it is in your own self interest to help your genes spread. But how many people would say that they only help members of their family for selfish reasons of the desire to spread their genes? Most people would say that they feel attachment to their family members, and help them altruistically. Why is it so ridiculous to suggest that we extend this to larger and larger groups?

 

[Darkdale]

Ok, I want to focus on this point. If someone is paralysed then it is not their fault (assuming they were paralysed by a condition rather than an accident, not that an accident would necessarily be their fault, I'm just being careful). You admit that they will not be able to work unless they have a great deal of knowledge. They are therefore instantly at a major disadvantage to other people in doing well in life, for no reason of their own. Yet you would chuck them into the competition with no welfare to help them? What if they also have a learning disorder? This is clearly now a very unlucky person, but it is not an impossibility. How do you treat someone who is paralysed and has a learning disorder in your ideal society?

The United States has one of the most charitable publics in the world. We gave $3,123,451,588 in private donations after Katrina hit. I believe strongly in charity and I think it is to charity, not government, that we should look to for help. But, being that the number of actually disabled people is small (not including the victims of our wars, who ought to be better cared for by the military), if society refused to care for them, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with the government stepping in an offering a kind of matched funds account. Basically, set up a national privately funded charity organization whose annual donations would be matched by the government. Then have the government place some limited restrictions on the charity to make sure that it remains efficient. That should encourage public donations and also provide a safety net for the people that meet up with real tragedy and whose families are unwilling or unable to help. Basically, as a society we'd have to figure out the most effective way of helping. If we can't help someone help themselves, then maybe we can help some charitable organizations help others. What we don't want are large ineffective federal bureaucracies running a purely tax-based welfare or social security system. I think it would be better if such a program were run by private citizens who actually care more about helping people than getting votes.

Freedom means you can make a choice. Someone who is in abject poverty is not as free as you or me. They don't have as much choice in their lives. If you point a gun at someone's head we would agree they are not free. Neither are you completly free if you have the threat of starvation hanging over you. You are not free to enjoy your life as much as other people.

But so long as no one has placed you in that situation by force, I don't see how it is the responsibility of the government. If the education system is just as good for people that are born in abject poverty as it is for people born into great wealth, you will still be providing people with the tools they need (and if schools have breakfast and lunch, the food) they need to get themselves straightened out. The problem is that parents have become increasingly inactive in their childrens education. I make this claim based on a limited experience of maybe five or six schools where friends of mine teach at; so I'm sure that isn't the case everywhere, but it seems to be common. It is not the government's job to steal the wealth of one group of people, by force, and thus limiting their economic liberties, to give it to another group of people. What you are talking about doesn't increase liberty.

When I made a claim that inequality causes depression, I backed it up with evidence. If you want this argument that using welfare causes depression, I suggest you find some evidence too. Indeed, you will need to proove that the depression caused by using welfare outweights the depression caused by the extra poverty without that welfare. If it does not outweigh it, then your argument against welfare is irrelevant.

No, I don't need to disprove it because I already stated that need doesn't create right. Depression doesn't create a right to welfare. However, I can tell you that the average national rate of depression is 4 to 10%, while the rate of depression vastly increases for people who are on welfare 12 to 36% and up to 57% in depressed symptoms in women. From here. But that isn't necessary information to my meaning. Need does not create right. You don't have a right to steal from others because you need something.

I'm afraid you're making some more mistakes. First of all, you're assuming that all communists are in favour of the taking of political liberties. I call myself a communist, and I would fight vermently to defend my political liberties against anyone who would try to take them. If you give someone something, it is not theft. Socialism is where the people give the government some of their economic liberties in exchange for more equality. If they don't see enough rise in equality, they can protest, or unelect the government. If they decide they want their economic liberties back, they just elect a new government. If they can't wait until the next election, then in a democratic country, enough public protest can force change.
Economic liberty means that the people can do what they want with their money. Economic liberty comes directly from political liberty. If people choose to give their money to the government, then they are exercising their economic liberties, not stripping themselves of them.

You seem to be confused about economic liberty and political liberty. Democracy simply allows the mediocre majority to use their political liberties to attack the economic liberties of the few. The same is true of civil liberties. Would you say that the several bans of homosexual marriage is an expression of good civil liberties, simply because American's have used their political liberties to make it so? That's poor logic.

Individuality is not lost from equality. I do not want to genetically alter everyone to have the same abilties. What is "natural" is not always what is best. Inequality is the basis of survival of the fittest, which is a very good system, but has no grounding in morals. Only humans can introduce morality. Richard Dawkins has said that while he spends his life looking at evolution and the process of natural selection, it does not mean that he thinks it is a good idea. He believes that we should be fighting the process of natural selection. I agree with him. Because we are all different, we all have something different to contribute to society. That is where we express our individuality.

Individuality is lost with equality. Equality exist when the difference between two individual quantities is zero. Anyone that thinks they can fight against the process of natural selection is suffering from the most serious case of arrogance and narcissism. I find the entire concept insane.

As you say, there are a lot of things that you are not smart or skilled enough to do. So is it fair that people who can do those things, simply because they were born with the ability to do them, should get a better deal out of life than you? We should not be envious of people. But yes, we should share in the goods that we create. In a family, people share in the goods that are produced. What is so fundamental about a family? You can justify the family connection if you simply go with what is "natural," because you can claim that it is in your own self interest to help your genes spread. But how many people would say that they only help members of their family for selfish reasons of the desire to spread their genes? Most people would say that they feel attachment to their family members, and help them altruistically. Why is it so ridiculous to suggest that we extend this to larger and larger groups?

Because you are saying that we extend it to larger groups through force, through government. You want to use your political liberties to attack the economic and civil liberties of others (mainly the rich and those who are born with natural advantages). Why? Are you really that envious of them. Do you hate them? What you are talking about is a soft kind of slavery. You want to own a piece of these people's work and minds. You want to own them. I think that kind of slavery is cruel and mean-spirited.

 

[Æsahættr]

What we don't want are large ineffective federal bureaucracies running a purely tax-based welfare or social security system. I think it would be better if such a program were run by private citizens who actually care more about helping people than getting votes.

Most of the politicians responsible for starting socialism in its infancy years ago were not vote grabbing. They were doing something that they believed very strongly in. Even with much milder left-wing politicians today, they generally still believe in their policies, just as right-wing politicians believe in their policies generally. The right to keep everything you produce is not a fundamental human right. You can fight to make it one, but until you do, if the majority of people want a tax, then that is their democratic right. As long as it is not inefficient, a governernment is better than private charity because it can plan. Private charity is on the whims of individuals. If nearly everyone decides to give to one charity rather than another, then people relying on other charities go without. You need a central body to co-ordinate. You might now suggest that such a body could be created. Why do you need a private body when you have the government? And what difference is there between people choosing to give money and people choosing to give money to the government? Tax is simply different because as you say, people are not allowed to be greedy, which I don't see is a problem, and because people make the decision once to vote for a government that will charge higher taxes, so it is an easier way to commit yourself.

But so long as no one has placed you in that situation by force, I don't see how it is the responsibility of the government. If the education system is just as good for people that are born in abject poverty as it is for people born into great wealth, you will still be providing people with the tools they need (and if schools have breakfast and lunch, the food) they need to get themselves straightened out. The problem is that parents have become increasingly inactive in their childrens education. I make this claim based on a limited experience of maybe five or six schools where friends of mine teach at; so I'm sure that isn't the case everywhere, but it seems to be common. It is not the government's job to steal the wealth of one group of people, by force, and thus limiting their economic liberties, to give it to another group of people. What you are talking about doesn't increase liberty.

It increases the number of people who are free. It spreads the freedom across, so that one person does not have far more freedom than another. People can be forced indirectly as well as directly, and they can have their freedom limited by bad luck. I believe that the government should have a responsobility to help people who have bad luck. Do you believe anyone has a responsibility to help someone who has bad luck, if they are in a position to help? Going back to private charity, do you believe that it is people's responsibility to give to charity or are they going above and beyond the call of duty? Please note also, when I said people who are unable to do well in capitalism, I meant those who are naturally unable to by bad luck as well as those who are unable to do so by bad luck through their place of birth.

No, I don't need to disprove it because I already stated that need doesn't create right. Depression doesn't create a right to welfare. However, I can tell you that the average national rate of depression is 4 to 10%, while the rate of depression vastly increases for people who are on welfare 12 to 36% and up to 57% in depressed symptoms in women. From here. But that isn't necessary information to my meaning. Need does not create right. You don't have a right to steal from others because you need something.

First of all, I don't believe that need always creates right. Where do your rights come from if not from need? You have the right to life from birth. Does that right come from work or from need? How situationist are your morals? The statement that no-one has a right to steal from others even if they need something sounds very absolutionist. Would you say that in your opinion the following two acts are equally immoral: a starving child stealing an apple say, and a millionaire stealing an apple. I know a millionaire is unlikely to steal an apple, but humour me.
That link proves nothing. You said earlier that you hadn't bothered to read through the links I provided. Lucky I make more of an effort. One part of that report talks about how the level of health insurance affects how likely someone is to receive treatment for depression, which in turn makes it harder for them to find employment. Sounds like a good time for a free health service to me. Also, that link does not, and does not attempt to, say whether it is the welfare itself that causes the depression, or the situation that leads to people needing welfare. For all you know, depression might be a lot higher for the same people if they did not have welfare.

You seem to be confused about economic liberty and political liberty. Democracy simply allows the mediocre majority to use their political liberties to attack the economic liberties of the few. The same is true of civil liberties. Would you say that the several bans of homosexual marriage is an expression of good civil liberties, simply because American's have used their political liberties to make it so? That's poor logic.

Homesexual marriages do not harm anyone else, directly or indirectly. One person making a huge amount of money that he keeps to himself does not hurt anyone directly (unless he exploited people), but it does hurt people indirectly, because he is denying that wealth to a large number of other people who need it far more than him.

Individuality is lost with equality. Equality exist when the difference between two individual quantities is zero.

The sort of equality that I am promoting is not giving people equal abilites. It is that regardless of your abilites, everyone should have equal rights to the same goods and services as everyone else. One person should not be priviledged above another because they are born luckier. You think that individuality comes only from your social class? That if there were no classes we would all be drones? That we would not be as unique as we are today?

Anyone that thinks they can fight against the process of natural selection is suffering from the most serious case of arrogance and narcissism. I find the entire concept insane.

Why? We've already basically removed the process of survival of the fittest in the traditional way. People who are weaker than others or not as intelligent as others are no longer far more likely to die before they reach an age where they can reproduce. Capitalism replaces that with another selection process, making sure that those who are likely to make lots of money are more able to have enough money to start a family. And this process generally doesn't happen because we take pity on those who have very little money and help them. Also, I am far more inclined to trust a biologist than you as to whether it is possible to defy natural selection.

Because you are saying that we extend it to larger groups through force, through government. You want to use your political liberties to attack the economic and civil liberties of others (mainly the rich and those who are born with natural advantages). Why? Are you really that envious of them. Do you hate them? What you are talking about is a soft kind of slavery. You want to own a piece of these people's work and minds. You want to own them. I think that kind of slavery is cruel and mean-spirited.

I am not envious of rich people, nor do I hate them. I often find that I am more likely to dislike higher class people that I meet, though that is not from prejudice, there are plenty of people I know in a higher social class than me who I like very much. Please explain how I am attacking the civil liberties of anyone. Anyone who wants to cut themselves off from society is welcome to go off to an island and live alone. If you live in society, you help society.

 

[Darkdale]

Most of the politicians responsible for starting socialism in its infancy years ago were not vote grabbing. They were doing something that they believed very strongly in. Even with much milder left-wing politicians today, they generally still believe in their policies, just as right-wing politicians believe in their policies generally. The right to keep everything you produce is not a fundamental human right. You can fight to make it one, but until you do, if the majority of people want a tax, then that is their democratic right. As long as it is not inefficient, a governernment is better than private charity because it can plan. Private charity is on the whims of individuals. If nearly everyone decides to give to one charity rather than another, then people relying on other charities go without. You need a central body to co-ordinate. You might now suggest that such a body could be created. Why do you need a private body when you have the government? And what difference is there between people choosing to give money and people choosing to give money to the government?

Well, at least you are demonstrating where real rights are derived from. Government. However, the government operates on two fundamental principles: Power and Force. The fact that the majority can vote themselves rights over the minority is merely a flaw of democracy, but one we all have to live with. This is why Socialism must be defeated philosophically and culturally. People must be convinced of their independence and ability to be self-reliant. Socialism is popular because people have become conditioned to be dependant and greedy. You are willing to use the power and force of government to establish public ownership over the work and minds of the people. You are willing to establish a democracy based on economic slavery. That is the greed, power and force that the people must be convinced is wrong. Libertarians and capitalists must convince the people of a moral and cultural code based on freedom and self-reliance, or everything we've created thus far will be utterly destroyed.

It increases the number of people who are free. It spreads the freedom across, so that one person does not have far more freedom than another. People can be forced indirectly as well as directly, and they can have their freedom limited by bad luck. I believe that the government should have a responsobility to help people who have bad luck. Do you believe anyone has a responsibility to help someone who has bad luck, if they are in a position to help? Going back to private charity, do you believe that it is people's responsibility to give to charity or are they going above and beyond the call of duty? Please note also, when I said people who are unable to do well in capitalism, I meant those who are naturally unable to by bad luck as well as those who are unable to do so by bad luck through their place of birth.

Again, what you are talking about isn't freedom. You are simply giving the people a right to enslave the most successful, most able and most productive members of society. Such greed and lust for power is natural, but it isn't beneficial. The seduction of socialism is based on the untruth that the majority should have a right to use the power of government to force the minority to serve. I don't hold to that philosophy.

First of all, I don't believe that need always creates right. Where do your rights come from if not from need? You have the right to life from birth. Does that right come from work or from need? How situationist are your morals? The statement that no-one has a right to steal from others even if they need something sounds very absolutionist. Would you say that in your opinion the following two acts are equally immoral: a starving child stealing an apple say, and a millionaire stealing an apple. I know a millionaire is unlikely to steal an apple, but humour me.

Stealing is stealing. It's the use of force to acquire what you have not earned. Yes, both are equally immoral. However, we all have the ability to try to survive, to steal, to kill, to take by force, but we should be looking toward higher ideals then the politics of theft which socialists so highly revere.

That link proves nothing. You said earlier that you hadn't bothered to read through the links I provided. Lucky I make more of an effort. One part of that report talks about how the level of health insurance affects how likely someone is to receive treatment for depression, which in turn makes it harder for them to find employment. Sounds like a good time for a free health service to me. Also, that link does not, and does not attempt to, say whether it is the welfare itself that causes the depression, or the situation that leads to people needing welfare. For all you know, depression might be a lot higher for the same people if they did not have welfare.

I would imagine if I was on welfare that I would feel ashamed, dependant and helpless. Just as if I lived off of my parents money, or if I was forced to live in slavery. But, I can also imagine that maybe most people don't share my values. Dependence and helplessness might feel good, who am I to say otherwise? And, I suppose it would be those same feelings that would make people feel like its' ok to enslave the minds and efforts of others. But thankfully in a democracy I am free to fight the greed of socialism with my mind, my money and all of my efforts. If I am unsuccessful, at least I used what little freedom I had left to try to protect the freedoms of everyone, equally.

Homesexual marriages do not harm anyone else, directly or indirectly. One person making a huge amount of money that he keeps to himself does not hurt anyone directly (unless he exploited people), but it does hurt people indirectly, because he is denying that wealth to a large number of other people who need it far more than him.

He isn't denying that wealth to a large number of people that need it more than him. He buys things. Creates jobs. Invests capital. The socialists won't win because they don't share the values of those who are successful. They think the deserve what they have not earned and they believe that have a right to enslave others. The people will become weak and the society will fall apart. Capitalists and Libertarians seek to stop this by creating more liberty and establishing a culture of self-reliance and charity.

The sort of equality that I am promoting is not giving people equal abilites. It is that regardless of your abilites, everyone should have equal rights to the same goods and services as everyone else. One person should not be priviledged above another because they are born luckier. You think that individuality comes only from your social class? That if there were no classes we would all be drones? That we would not be as unique as we are today?

So effort and skill mean nothing. Need creates right. Again, that's a philosophy of greed and theft, and I don't hold to that.

Why? We've already basically removed the process of survival of the fittest in the traditional way. People who are weaker than others or not as intelligent as others are no longer far more likely to die before they reach an age where they can reproduce. Capitalism replaces that with another selection process, making sure that those who are likely to make lots of money are more able to have enough money to start a family. And this process generally doesn't happen because we take pity on those who have very little money and help them. Also, I am far more inclined to trust a biologist than you as to whether it is possible to defy natural selection.

lol No, you are simply willing to trust that biologist more than me. The biologists that would disagree with him would be quickly ignored I'm sure. :biglaugh:

I am not envious of rich people, nor do I hate them. I often find that I am more likely to dislike higher class people that I meet, though that is not from prejudice, there are plenty of people I know in a higher social class than me who I like very much. Please explain how I am attacking the civil liberties of anyone. Anyone who wants to cut themselves off from society is welcome to go off to an island and live alone. If you live in society, you help society.

You have no sense of liberty. If you live in a free society you should be allowed to live freely. You want to convince people to freely make themselves slaves and what is so frightening is that so many people are willing to do that. They have no sense of history. No memory of what life is like under tyranny. But know this, if you succeed in forcing socialism on America, it won't be long before you are facing a civil war. Freedom is too important for us to let it slip away because the majority of people have become weak, envious, vicious and greedy.

As I said before, "...welfare doesn't correct the problem. It lessens the burden. It also hurts the economy by requiring more taxes and is often coupled with more restrictions on the growth of capital. Taxing capital is like taxing jobs themselves. The more capital we have, the more investment we have and the more we'll have to produce and consume (thus more jobs)". Socialism doesn't even work. It's destructive and burdensome. It weakens the population. I mean, this is really dangerous stuff you are proposing.

 

[Quiddity]

However, the government operates on two fundamental principles: Power and Force. The fact that the majority can vote themselves rights over the minority is merely a flaw of democracy, but one we all have to live with. This is why Socialism must be defeated philosophically and culturally. People must be convinced of their independence and ability to be self-reliant. Socialism is popular because people have become conditioned to be dependant and greedy. You are willing to use the power and force of government to establish public ownership over the work and minds of the people. You are willing to establish a democracy based on economic slavery. That is the greed, power and force that the people must be convinced is wrong. Libertarians and capitalists must convince the people of a moral and cultural code based on freedom and self-reliance, or everything we've created thus far will be utterly destroyed.

Masterfully said...:clap

~Victor

 

[Darkdale]

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
- Ayn Rand, From The New Intellectual.

"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia - or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same."
- Ayn Rand, From "The Monument Builders".

"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."
- Ayn Rand, From "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus".

"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom; socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude".
By, Alexis de Tocqueville.

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin". By, Ronald Reagan.

"Collectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's 'fair share' of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless". By, P.J. O'Rourke, From "How to Explain Conservatism".

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." By, Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Æsahættr]

Just an observation Darkdale; you're starting to slip into a lot of arguments based on opinion rather than fact or logic, and using a lot more emotive language. That's fine if you're arguing with someone who is already at a similar viewpoint but you're not. Stick with logic and reason please.

However, the government operates on two fundamental principles: Power and Force. The fact that the majority can vote themselves rights over the minority is merely a flaw of democracy, but one we all have to live with.

Merely a flaw? It's a key part of it. Power to the people after all. The government does not have power over peope. Government is an expression of the people's power, and an organised way to use that power for good. If you don't believe that what is good is the will of the majority then what standard so you use for it? If you use an individual's definition of what is good then you will end up with millions of different definitions. As an example, consider the fact that some people believe that democracy is wrong, and that we should take orders from a single person rather than as a group. So why do we adopt a system of democracy, effectivelly ignoring this person's views? Why are their views any less valid? The answer is that their views are rejected by the majority. Morals are a human constructed concept. There is no external objective answer to appeal to. We have to decide what is moral between ourselves. We cannot operate by requiring a unanimous vote on what is moral. By using such systems as constitutions requiring a certain large majoirty to change, we ensure that major decisions require a greater majority to enforce. If everyone in the world except one person believed that something was acceptable, then that one person would have to fight to defend his views, but you can't suggest that no action could be taken until he agreed.

This is why Socialism must be defeated philosophically and culturally. People must be convinced of their independence and ability to be self-reliant. Socialism is popular because people have become conditioned to be dependant and greedy.

Many people who adhere to the principles of socialism stand to lose out from it. How is that greedy? If you are have more wealth than the average citizen of the world, then you will have less under socialism than capitalism. It is far from greed.
I do not believe in total independance. No-one is completly independant of everyone else. I believe in inter-dependance. Please use that rather than dependance, it is a much more accurate word to describe the aims of socialism. Inter-dependance means that I depend on you, and you depend on me. But each of us also depends on everyone else. You give to others, and they give to you. Support is better than isolation.

You are willing to use the power and force of government to establish public ownership over the work and minds of the people. You are willing to establish a democracy based on economic slavery. That is the greed, power and force that the people must be convinced is wrong. Libertarians and capitalists must convince the people of a moral and cultural code based on freedom and self-reliance, or everything we've created thus far will be utterly destroyed.

Emotive langauge that proves nothing, accomplishes nothing other than rallying others who share your views. Politics should be about discussion and debate, not about siding up. Again you suggest that you are for freedom while I am against it. We both believe in freedom. We both agree that freedom needs political liberty and social liberty. You simply believe that equality has no part in freedom, while I do, and believe that it is just as important, if not more important, than economic liberties.
If you carry on with your thinking that we must be as self-reliant as possible, does that mean that you think it's a bad thing that we are so dependant on other species for our survival. Does it not depress you every day to think that you cannot surive on your own, that your very existance is in the hands of micro-organisms?

Again, what you are talking about isn't freedom.

Explain why! Explain why I am wrong in saying that someone who is born unlucky, with certain disabilites say, is not as free as someone else in a capitalist society, because they are not free to do so much, as it is harder for them to make as much money. Having freedom to do something is more than someone saying that you are allowed to do it. If you are unable to do it for no fault of your own, you are not free to do it. Obviously as such we can never attain perfect freedom, as some things will always been beyond us, but capitalism exaggerates this lack of freedom when it comes to people who are born unable to make as much money as other people.

You are simply giving the people a right to enslave the most successful, most able and most productive members of society. Such greed and lust for power is natural, but it isn't beneficial. The seduction of socialism is based on the untruth that the majority should have a right to use the power of government to force the minority to serve. I don't hold to that philosophy.

It is not slavery, it is a condition of being part of society. A slave is not free to leave. Anyone who wants to can leave a socialist society. Even if it was global socialism, then anyone who wanted could form a society on their own, and practise capitalism. The minority are not serving the majority. Everyone is "serving" one another. And seeing as anyone can leave, as I said, it isn't really serving. It's helping. It's giving people a choice. You can be part of this society, where we all help one another, or you can be part of another society, where people don't help one another.

Stealing is stealing. It's the use of force to acquire what you have not earned. Yes, both are equally immoral. However, we all have the ability to try to survive, to steal, to kill, to take by force, but we should be looking toward higher ideals then the politics of theft which socialists so highly revere.

So no-one can be forced in stealing something by their conditions? A homeless child who occasionally steals food to survive, is not making enough of an effort to look towards higher ideals?

I would imagine if I was on welfare that I would feel ashamed, dependant and helpless.

You are saying that people need to be taught to believe in independance rather than inter-dependance. This is because inter-dependance is the driving force behind socialism, which uses such despicible things as welfare. Why is welfare bad. Well, because people should be independant... Circular argument? You might feel ashamed, dependant and helpless if you were on welfare. Would you still refuse the money if you needed it really badly though? Welfare does not claim to be a perfect solution. It is the lesser of two evils. And people that believe in inter-dependance would be less likely to feel ashamed and helpless. They would know that the government was just helping them to get through a difficult time, until they were able to contribute to society again. And they wouldn't need to worry about whether they were a net drain or a net contributer in their lives, because the government wouldn't mind. All they have to do is know that they've done their best. That's all society can ask.

But, I can also imagine that maybe most people don't share my values. Dependence and helplessness might feel good, who am I to say otherwise? And, I suppose it would be those same feelings that would make people feel like its' ok to enslave the minds and efforts of others.

I can tell you that interdependance, not dependance, can give you a very good feeling. It's a feeling of trust. When you are interdependant with someone else, to whatever degree, you know that you needn't feel guilty about asking them for help, because at some point you will help them in return. And when you help them, you do so unconditionally, trusting that they will do the same for you whenevr you need it. It is not helpless at all. We are helpless alone. Together is when we can accomplish things.

But thankfully in a democracy I am free to fight the greed of socialism with my mind, my money and all of my efforts. If I am unsuccessful, at least I used what little freedom I had left to try to protect the freedoms of everyone, equally.

See above for comments on 'the greed of socialism.' Yet more examples of emotive language designed to draw supporters, lining up sides rather than sticking to rational discussion.


(Have to split this post into 2 it's so long)