| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1828 Joined: 14 Nov 2007     | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1618 Joined: 29 Dec 2007   |
Can't do. I save my bile for economics.
But again, an end result is meaningless if there is no means to get to it. The unicorn and hobbit argument still holds.
Again, morals aren't as deeply ingrained and objective as we'd like. I'd love a society which valued work and cooperation, but the simple fact of the matter is we don't live in one and basing a system on the assumption that we all want the same things is a poor idea.
Called it.
In a capitalist society (I'm using this one since your society wouldn't function with money in the first place), supply and demand makes it damn near impossible to pay janitors more than moviestars.
|
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 849 Joined: 22 Aug 2006    |
I was reading Galt as using the literal meaning of a "utopia". From Wikipedia: 'The word comes from Greek: οὐ, "not", and τόπος, "place"... "Utopia" is sometimes used pejoratively, in reference to an unrealistic ideal that is impossible to achieve...'
Similarly, I wanted to bring up the general concept of asymmetric warfare. Guerrila warfare, especially in sympathetic communities, is doable, but completely weaponless guerrila warfare? Good luck. If there were ever good reason to overthrow the US government, the use of tanks, heavy artillery, and air support against citizens (even disgruntled ones) would only further the cause of the dissidents. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 137 Joined: 13 Oct 2008  | For the first test, here are my results... Economic Left/Right: -7.00 |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1367 Joined: 12 Sep 2007   |
Oh hell yeah, to all of those. And yes, I'm a huge fan of Palin, have been since she first began taking on the corrupt (mostly Republican) Alaskan good ol' boy network and the oil companies back in 2003 or 2004. I'm not a neo-fundamentalist, though. Or any kind of fundamentalist. For example, I am willing to believe that the Earth and universe were created in six days and even that those six days were possibly six calender days OR six thousand years, even though I don't have any idea why an all-powerful being would be in such a hurry. I am NOT willing to pretend that evolution, including macro-evolution, is false. If the Earth and universe actually were created in six days or six thousand years, then G-d obviously wants us to believe in evolution. Assuming G-d is both smarter than I and not an asshole, there must be a reason the Earth and universe look billions of years old. Either the story is an allegory, or it's wrong, or G-d intends us to believe in evolution. So if the best science says the Earth and universe are billions of years old, I'm going to behave as if the Earth and universe are billions of years old even though I believe in G-d AND I believe in Jesus. Similarly, if you wreck your car I'm not going to say "It's G-d's will." Until I see evidence otherwise, I'm going to say you should have been more careful. As to the other, I'm comfortable with some socialism in my capitalism. A completely capitalistic society would be very productive, but very unpleasant if you are near the bottom of the food chain. In a completely capitalistic society, upward mobility for most people would be as difficult as in a completely socialist society. Incidentally, I'm not surprised you test out farther left than Castro. Leaders of Communist nations either eventually drop it at least as an economic form and pick up capitalism with some socialist principles, or they are much more interested in their own power than in the tenants of Marxism. That's one of the big reasons why Marxism as a form of economy never works well in the real world - it's like the Peter Principle, only with evil instead of incompetence. And of course, Marxism as a political system is no different from any other form of authoritarianism, where one or a few people hold all the power. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 111 Joined: 13 Aug 2006   | My results for these labeling "test" were very predictable and the moral test in my case is a bit off. Your political compass Your scored -3 on Moral Order and -4 on Moral Rules. The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible): 1. System: Liberalism Of the 488,911 respondents (6,026 on Facebook): 1. 3% are close to you. I'm Republican, because I believe in less government not more, I don't like welfare, and I generally don't like any social programs outside of what I consider to be rationally sensible. My views are simple really and the theme can boiled down into one statement; take responsibility for the shit you do and just because you fail at life doesn't mean I should be required to help you. In more detail, I believe in the free market but true capitalism depends on people having integrity. Pragmatically I recognize that everyone having and behaving with a degree of integrity is only possible in a perfect world. This is where I think regulation should come in and play a role in the market. While sad I believe it is necessary to mandate integrity via government regulation on business practices. This something that we (the U.S.) already do I only want to see it completed. For example, regulation not letting banks give huge loans to people who can't pay them back, not letting credit card companies give credit to people who just finished filling for bankruptcy. The two actions in that example sound like common sense but, are done everyday a non-working college student gets a credit card with a $5,000 limit. Culturally, I don't care what other people do as long it doesn't directly affect others. If you want to stay home all day and play video games, I don't care. If you want to get drunk everyday by 10am, I don't care. If you want a gun collection that would be large enough equip a small army, I don't care. But, if the couch potato video game player (yes, I recognize not all gamers are couch potatoes, this is the Escapist right?) wants to collect welfare, if the drunk wants to go driving around their neighborhood, and if the gun collector decides to aim his collection at people, that's when I care. As long as it doesn't affect others I don't care what you do but when your actions start having an impact others around you, the consequences (or rewards) of you actions are yours to bear and no one else's. |
Muckraker  Posts: 329 Joined: 12 Sep 2008  | Ok, here it is. This is why anarchist communism will work. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 753 Joined: 23 Dec 2007   | Actually possum, pure capitalist economic systems are pretty inefficent, as: Most of your workers are too malnourished, dispirited or dead to work. It encourages the formation of monopoly, an inherently inefficent form of private enterprise. People who get pissy enough ARE going to take it upon themselves to take capitalism to it's logical extreme- anarchy. (SEE- If you move far enough to one extreme, it becomes the opposite.) |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1618 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 |
Um...or we could just use another system, you know, one that makes sense. There's no reason to make something work because we "have to", there is however reason to ditch an impractical and idealist system in favor of something that's workable. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1367 Joined: 12 Sep 2007 |
Not at all - look at Singapore or Hong Kong, both reasonably pure capitalistic economies. Humans won't accept jobs that don't pay enough for survival at a minimum; there would be no point. A pure capitalistic economy where anything near half of its people were starving would have a violent revolution, because so many people would have nothing to lose. Probably it would fail if the population were disarmed or poorly armed, but even then the great loss of life would reduce the labor pool and raise wages. Historically the chance of a monopoly rising due to capitalism has been close to nil. Almost all monopolies have been established using the power of government, either by royal grant of monopoly or through tax and regulation to prevent competition. Any consumer product has to be relatively inexpensive to produce in order to make it inexpensive enough for the masses to buy. When a monopoly has been established, prices naturally go up because there is nothing to keep them down; the monopolist is free to raise prices enough to make even more profit from less sales. That leaves an expanding market sector of people who want the product but can't or won't pay the new price. Sooner or later another company will produce a similar product. Even if this new product is greatly inferior to the existing product, it will begin to eat into its base. Not many Americans want to own a Zil or Tata, and not enough people are willing to own one to make them practical brands in the USA. But if Toyota bought up every other car manufacturer in the USA, offering only the Prius for $100,000, Zils or Tatas would suddenly sell in the USA because the cost of the Prius would put it beyond the means of most people who want an automobile. With little competition, Zils or Tatas would be very profitable to sell. So what happens if Toyota buys Zil and Tata? General Electric or Siemens or some other large company not currently involved in the automotive business decides there is room to begin building automobiles and making a larger profit than in their other lines of business. But suppose Nintendo makes so much money on the Wii II that it buys every manufacturing company in the world. Nintendo have a monopoly on automobiles, correct? No private company exists in the world that can manufacture automobiles, so Nintendo can charge anything they want, right? Not in a capitalistic economy. Now the guy with a machine shop says "I can't afford the new $125,000 Nintendo Prius, but I've got a lot of machine tools. I bet I could build myself an automobile - maybe a nice pick-up truck." So he does. It's pretty crude compared to a Prius - no hybrid system, no radio, no air conditioning - but it allows our machinist to pick up and deliver parts as well as take his wife to dinner. So his neighbor sees this truck and asks "How much to build me one?" Thus Ray Motors is born. This is capitalism. Only by using the power of government - outright forbidding home-built automobiles or by establishing enough regulations to kill them - can a monopoly ever exist for any length of time if it involves something that a lot of people want. My point was that a pure capitalistic economy would stratify like a pure Marxist economy; poor people would be unable to provide a decent education for their children, thus trapping those children into the same low paying jobs. A few brilliant children would manage to escape poverty due to genius or great good luck, like a few peasants in a Marxist economy will manage to escape poverty due to genius or rabid party loyalty plus good luck, but most people would remain within the socio-economic class into which they were born. |
Muckraker Posts: 329 Joined: 12 Sep 2008 |
I happen to think this system is workable. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1618 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 |
An anarchist commune has only been tried on small scales and even then major difficulties arise. The main problem with a commune is that it's hard to get shit done. When you've got an egalitarian society, people don't necessarily react positively to people with ideas on how it should be run. It's much easier to achieve technological, economic, and social progress if you've got a well-established, honest authority running the show. The Han Dynasty of ancient China is a perfect example of good government. They brought peace, stability, and an overall good life to millions in the wake of the tyrannical Qin emperor. Read up on Confucianism before assuming that authority is inherently flawed. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 55 Joined: 8 Oct 2008  | -6.83, -1.64 Anyone mind explaining? |
Muckraker Posts: 329 Joined: 12 Sep 2008 | Authority is not a problem in itself, i just don't want it! |
Muckraker Posts: 330 Joined: 8 Sep 2008 | gun laws-sure, i wanna murder someone, but i dont wanna get cought posessing an illegal peice of metal! besides, the second amendment is there so we can kill leaders who fuck with us too much. that means that if its available to the military it should be available to civilians. the big problem with "pure capitalism" is that people can be manipulated, tricked, deceived, and its not that hard. its like evolution, the best will probably survive (or get struck by lightning, or attacked by three others at onece, or chased off a cliff into a shark, or crushed in an avalanch or something, maybe even just kicked out for being difference) survive, but george W bush still managed to have kids, and because he is the avatar of lowest common denomonator he managed to become president. hell when people arent knowledgeable about a product they buy randomly or go with blind brand loyalty, how many different devices do you have in your home? how many services do you pay for? what would these companies say if they werent forced to be honest in ads? and how many of these things do you REALLY understand completely? do you understand the complex loan systems? do you understand the inner working of your computer, kernals and tracks and ROM and shit? do you know how a car transmission works? do you know the difference between packet switching and circuit switching and the layout of your ISPs network? do you understand all the intricacies of international politics? can you produce a servicable crepe? do you know what zinc is used for within the human body, what foods its found in, and how the human immune integumentary and circulatory systems work? do you know what to look for in a good cut of beef, and what a healthy cow looks like? do you know how to build a house and your local construction codes (stud placing and the like)? if you answered yes to all of these you would function well in a free market economy, if you werent LYING. total free market might work if we were completely logical beings, but we are most certainly not. |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 753 Joined: 23 Dec 2007 | Yes, 742, but then the aforementioned company will be blacklisted by it's users and go out of business as it's rivals eat all of it's customers up. Free market systems work because they rely on greed, mordant wit and innate savagery, rather than absurd moralism and the value system of the current politican incumbents. And as to your first comment on military hardware-oh good, now people like Capone can settle their gang wars with tanks, rockets and tactical nuclear strikes. And besides, the whole idea of a citezens militia is incredibly obsolete, as they lack discipline, organisation and any kind of centralised command structure. The reason most wars are settled by trained, proffessonal armies is because they are a lot better at killing than Joe Sunday. And Possum- the example you've given is flawed,because if Niten-car wishes to maintain it's monopoly, it will simply buy any emerging firms up. Or, if you refuse to sell, you mysteriously vanish. Plus, Niten-Motors is going to have so much money it will be able to influence politics. Example: The USA 'Trust' system during the 1890s, where gargantuan monopolies (technically olgiopolies, but since the group controlling them was so small it had the characteristics of a monopoly.)> |
BANNED  Posts: 117 Joined: 15 Oct 2008  | Economic left/right: 5.25 Dang, Maybe I shouldn't be here. Is this site for Liberals only? On the other super sort 16 question test: Capital Repbulicanism,(dang that was right on) Gerald Ford User was banned for: A Black President in 80% Caucasian Country. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1497 Joined: 14 Oct 2007   |
I believe your avatar says just about everything one needs to know. |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 753 Joined: 23 Dec 2007 | Here's to the South. Shame we (Britain) didn't pitch in and give you chaps a hand back in '62. Well, you can blame Seward for that. That, and the French. |
Muckraker  Posts: 267 Joined: 30 Jul 2008 | Economics: -6.12 However, I think where ever you are on the political graph, everyone essentially believes in all the same things: we should have a fair society. What we disagree on is our definitions of fairness. For example, how fair is our capitalist system? Those on the right, such as Wereposseum no doubt thinks it's pretty fair; those on the left, such as me thinks capitalism is foundamentally unfair. I think it's interesting how the vast majority on this forum is on the left and liberal side of the graph. And how it reflects the age of the posters on this forum. Are we just young and naive? Or can we really change the world? Or is it just a natural age thing? Before I comment on anything else, lemme just push the cards over and show my hand: 1) Capitalism is injustice. The only reason why an organisation employs you is because you contribute more than you get in return as wages, the difference is called profit for the shareholders. Most people are not shareholders in the company they are working for. The primary purpose of a company is profit maximisation, and market maximisation. To achieve this, it is a necessity to seek out the cheapest labourers, and the highest paying customers, in order to maximise their profit margins; it is a necessity to drive your competitors out of business. If a company does something ethical, which reduces their profit margin and gains no other significant benefits, such as doubling their wages and improving working conditions, then this company is doing something foundamentally wrong, and will be pushed out of business by its competitors. Gladly, our society, even USA, is not entirely capitalist. Great people like Keynes has contributed a lot to curb capitalism. 2) There is no "Free dom" nor "Democracy" in a capitalist society. Because everything can be bought and sold. Your labor is product your employer has bought. Your vote is a product your politician has bought through advertising and marketing. Your thoughts are a product, which interests many companies and politicians. The "Free press" is a product, bought by advertisers, influenced by a perceived majority view or correct view, and aimed at changing your thoughts. The education system is a product, just look at the money spent on the Creationism in schools controversy, or the Japanese history textbooks controversy. Although, democracy is the best form of government we know of, it does not imply a system that changes the government every 4 years, and puts a new batch of clueless people in the driving seat, is a good government. Imagine what your company would be like if you ran that system. 3) We are probably all wrong. I sat next to a Japanese guy on a train once, since it was a very long journey with no entertainment on board, we discussed why Japan invaded China in 1937, resulting in a war lasting 8 years, consuming 1 million Japanese soldiers and 30 million Chinese civilians' lives, and completely devastating most of China. The best explanation he could find, is "collective stupidity": Everyone thought everyone else was thinking a particular way, so to conform they expressed their support for that line of thinking, then everyone else saw oh, they are all thinking like that, so they all conform too. So they ended up starting a war no one wanted, but everyone thought everyone else wanted. |
BANNED Posts: 117 Joined: 15 Oct 2008 |
I believe if you are serious about your judgements of others based on thier avatars, is true; then that one sentence sums up everything I need to know about you and your kind. User was banned for: A Black President in 80% Caucasian Country. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1618 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 |
Don't worry, gamers tend to be a liberal bunch from what I've seen, but we've got good righties like me, Fondant, and Werepossum here to back you up. |
BANNED  Posts: 740 Joined: 19 Jun 2008    |
an we don't like yo kind round hea. Sorry, I couldn't help it. User was banned for: I'm Finished. (Permanent) |
BANNED Posts: 740 Joined: 19 Jun 2008 | Economic Left/Right: 6.62 User was banned for: I'm Finished. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2093 Joined: 4 Nov 2007   |
Oh burn! |
BANNED | |
thing is, I'm really genuinely surprised at how radical this test says I am. I'm a leftie, and proud of it, but my score makes me more commie than Castro at a red-fest. I'm a socialist. I can't stand communism. It really winds me up when people confuse the two ideals. Yet apparently Lenin is an authoritarian fascist compared to me.
Nonetheless, you're still a gun-toting, psycho conservative capitalist, werepossum:P
Incidentally, I noticed on another thread that you're pro-Sarah Palin. Shome mishtake shurely? I know you're pretty right-wing, but you're surely not part of the neo-fundamentalist brigade?