Total Posts:137|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socialism

TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 2:11:25 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Any socialists here?

If so I would like to hear why you are one. This is so I can learn more about it, I ain't particularly politically - savvy.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 4:34:29 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 2:11:25 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Any socialists here?

If so I would like to hear why you are one. This is so I can learn more about it, I ain't particularly politically - savvy.

I'm a socialist - have been for many years. Socialism in Europe and the US are viewed very differently, however. In America, the right wing controlled media stigmatises socialism by associating it with bleak, poverty-stricken people oppressed by corrupt, authoritarian regimes.

In Europe, on the other hand. socialism is associated with social justice - the notion that society should be a meritocracy built upon equality of opportunity and where creativity and free enterprise is nourished and not oppressed by the ruling classes.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 8:32:24 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
right wing controlled media stigmatises

hahaha good one.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 10:00:10 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 4:34:29 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 10/18/2008 2:11:25 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:


In Europe, on the other hand. socialism is associated with social justice - the notion that society should be a meritocracy built upon equality of opportunity and where creativity and free enterprise is nourished and not oppressed by the ruling classes.

Um...

Lemme guess, slavery is freedom, right? First, "meritocracy" contradicts "equality of opportunity," since if those with merit rule, they decide what opportunities they give people, even if those opportunities are unequal. "Free enterprise" likewise contradicts "Equality of opportunity-" If people are free, they choose whether to provide opportunities. Unless you mean equality of opportunity in the most general sense- but even then, socialism contradicts that anyway typically, since it subsidizes some groups more than others, by it's very nature. And above all, since socialism is state control of the economy, it clearly contradicts free enterprise- Free enterprise can only be "nourished" by the government by enforcing contracts and otherwise keeping its hands off.

Furthermore, that is not what the term social justice was invented to mean. "Social justice" is a term used by communists to distinguish their standard of justice from "impartial" or "bourgeois" justice- i.e., social justice is partial justice, whichever party to the case is poorer is necessarily right :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 10:36:59 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
America is and has a been socialist society for many years. I'm not a socialist in the way many politicians view socialism. I'm a transhumanist. I believe that technology and the internet will progress to a level that renders government obsolete. I believe that every human being is like a cell in an organism and what we have been lacking is a direct means of communicating with each other on a vast scale. Our inability to do this has forced us to create governments. Now however we are reaching a stage in human evolution where that ability isn't very far off. Once ubiquitous computing takes over humans will realize their roles and we will create one godlike super entity.

It is only after this happens that we will even be able to interact with alien life if it exists, because any alien life that is technological advanced enough to be capable of interacting with us had to have evolved to a similar point.

As stephen hawkings says this period of human evolution is but a small blip between millions of years as cellular organisms and millions of years as super-organisms.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 10:40:36 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
The only problem I have with socialism is that it requires the confiscation of too much of one's life and liberty so that it may be handed over (less 80% due to goverment inefficiency) to complete strangers in the name of government kindness. A government should not be oppressive to one group in order to be "kind" to another. There is a certain percentage of one's life he is willing to give to his fellow citizens, and I'd imagine most would agree it should not be 50%. Aside from that, socialism sounds wonderful.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 10:46:15 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Money/income does not equate to life or liberty. The view that it does, one of extreme materialism, is a deeper problem in our society than poverty and crime as both poverty and crime can be connected to materialism, or to use a word with moral implication, GREED.
Don't I take care of them all?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 11:17:25 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Money is just a representation of the time one has traded to earn it. One's time is his life. The concept of liberty has to do with the ability for one to have control over his life. If one can keep more of his money, he is keeping more of the time he forfeited to earn it? The old saying "time is money" goes deeper than most think.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 11:32:01 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 11:17:25 AM, HandsOff wrote:
Money is just a representation of the time one has traded to earn it. One's time is his life. The concept of liberty has to do with the ability for one to have control over his life. If one can keep more of his money, he is keeping more of the time he forfeited to earn it? The old saying "time is money" goes deeper than most think.

So does "money is the root of all evil" :P

By this rationale, money = time and time = life, ergo money = life. Going farther with this logic, an individual that works at [Hamburger Joint X] puts in the same amount of time working that the CEO of [Oil Company Y], but makes a penny for every ten bucks the CEO makes, therefore his life is worth less?
Don't I take care of them all?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 12:01:22 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I do not have a problem with your logic. But keep in mind when one spends his time and money early on in life (college, medical school, investing rather than spending, etc.) to pursue more money per hour in the future, he has in essence sacrificed for a higher payoff in the future. The general public should not be penalized because others are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices early on to produce a higher money/time exchange rate in the future. If one's time is of more value than another's it is typically so because he has earned every bit of that premium. And as long as others have the same opportunity to increase the value of their own time, I don't see why the government should have a right to take a higher percentage from one person than another.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 12:02:27 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Would you agree that when people are paying different income tax rates from one another, they are not receiving equal treatment under the law?
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 12:45:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"But keep in mind when one spends his time and money early on in life (college, medical school, investing rather than spending, etc.) to pursue more money per hour in the future, he has in essence sacrificed for a higher payoff in the future."

I see where you're coming from, but where exactly is the "sacrifice?"

"The general public should not be penalized because others are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices early on to produce a higher money/time exchange rate in the future."

Often it is not a matter of willing, but of able. As a sidenote, it would seem to me that the general public is not penalized, but rather benefits from, socialism. <I do not mean to take this argument on a tangent with you;)>

" And as long as others have the same opportunity to increase the value of their own time, I don't see why the government should have a right to take a higher percentage from one person than another."

So we come full circle, to the heart of the matter - nowhere near everyone has the same opportunities available to them.

"Would you agree that when people are paying different income tax rates from one another, they are not receiving equal treatment under the law?"

There is no such thing as "equal treatment under the law" when it comes to tax rates. You earn more, you pay more. As it should be, because you are able to. Taxing an extra 10% (or whatever) from a person that earns 2 million a year doesn't affect that person in any real sense. Taxing an extra 10% from a person that earns 20K a year makes all the difference in the world.
Don't I take care of them all?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 1:32:24 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 10:09:35 AM, brittwaller wrote:
So there are no capitalists in Europe, R_R?

Oh, sure there are. Haven't heard of the Free Europe Project, I think it's called?

They aren't common though.

And there is no capitalism in Europe. Both Europe and the US are Keynesian.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 1:50:56 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Britt,
Your assumptions are as follow. Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. No sacrifice or postponement of pleasure is necessary to invest in an education and other experiences to increase one's wage.

2. In order for people who make more to pay more in taxes, they must have a higher percentage of their income taken. A common percentage would not accomplish this.

3. There is little opportunity for success in the U.S. for those not born into privilege or willing to vote their way to prividege which is to be paid for by others.

Does that sum it up?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 2:02:56 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
No, not if you find a logical flaw in a particular Randian conclusion. I've had trouble finding any, so I'm still stuck. If you can think of any, I'd sure like to give them some consideration.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 2:12:32 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 1:50:56 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Britt,
Your assumptions are as follow. Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. No sacrifice or postponement of pleasure is necessary to invest in an education and other experiences to increase one's wage.

2. In order for people who make more to pay more in taxes, they must have a higher percentage of their income taken. A common percentage would not accomplish this.

3. There is little opportunity for success in the U.S. for those not born into privilege or willing to vote their way to prividege which is to be paid for by others.

Does that sum it up?

1. Going to school/other is not a sacrifice, especially considering that one is likely to come out better off in the long-term.

2. Correct. Not to accomplish what has to be acomplished by government. Not the make-believe idealistic non-government you speak of, but the government that actually exists and that all people actually depend on for services.

3. Not exactly what I said, but a funny caricature. So, correct.
Don't I take care of them all?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 2:28:13 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Britt, let's clarify:

1. Short-term sacrifice is not sacrifice because it creates a long-term payoff.

2. Income tax rates should depend on the spending appetites of politicians and the whims of a self-serving majority, versus independent standards of fairness.

3. There is little hope for success in the U.S., even for those willing to sacrifice in order to educate themselves.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 3:00:18 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 2:28:13 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Britt, let's clarify:

1. Short-term sacrifice is not sacrifice because it creates a long-term payoff.

2. Income tax rates should depend on the spending appetites of politicians and the whims of a self-serving majority, versus independent standards of fairness.

3. There is little hope for success in the U.S., even for those willing to sacrifice in order to educate themselves.

1. I still don't know what is supposedly being sacrificed.

2. No, what is needed is what will most help progress society as a whole, whatever that may be at the time. Right now, as throughout history, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. It would be nice if so many people were not living in an inescapable cycle of poverty, so those are able should help those less fortunate, as that will be to the eventual benefit of both. You want to talk about sacrifice, right?

3. Again, not what I said. Many, many people have nothing to sacrifice in the first place, hear me?
Don't I take care of them all?
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 3:11:11 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 10:36:59 AM, Zerosmelt wrote:
America is and has a been socialist society for many years. I'm not a socialist in the way many politicians view socialism. I'm a transhumanist. I believe that technology and the internet will progress to a level that renders government obsolete.

Thats a completely ridiculous and foolish idea. Government was created for organization purposes and to provide constitutents with services that they could not otherwise produce on their own.

1. National Defense
2. Research
3. charity incentives
4. Economic regulation

etc.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 3:14:08 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
As far as what money is and whats its for I can't believe this is being debated.

Money = Resources

And essentially is a tool to provide people with fairer trades.

Aka instead of getting payed in Cows for the time I spend laboring for farmer brown I get paid in money. I can then pick what I have traded my time for. Its a very valuable tool.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 3:22:20 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
widdling it down...

1. Working multiple jobs to pay for college, then putting in the time to do the work necessary to graduate is not sacrifice.

2. "What is needed is what will most help progress society as a whole," so taking even 80% of one's time is okay as long as it results in the whole getting what it "needs."

3. People who are not born into privilege have nothing to sacrifice to achieve success, not even their time, which some wrongly say can be used to study and coonverted to money for tuition.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 3:35:39 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 3:22:20 PM, HandsOff wrote:
widdling it down...

1. Working multiple jobs to pay for college, then putting in the time to do the work necessary to graduate is not sacrifice.

Most people I knew in college did not work multiple jobs, if they worked any, and that was usually for spending money. Many also consider college to be a grand experience on the road of life, not a "sacrifice" of their time, but a willing participation.
2. "What is needed is what will most help progress society as a whole," so taking even 80% of one's time is okay as long as it results in the whole getting what it "needs."

You lost me here. "Time is money" is a simile, not a literal fact.

3. People who are not born into privilege have nothing to sacrifice to achieve success, not even their time, which some wrongly say can be used to study and coonverted to money for tuition.

They cannot give time for education if they already have to work two jobs just to make rent and food. Hear me now?
Don't I take care of them all?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 5:10:48 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Britt,

1.I'm not saying there are not trust-fund babies going to college, only that one of little means can make sacrifices to get an ecudation. Agreed?

2. For most working Americans "time is money" is both a fact and a simile. Agreed?

3. Grants and charities exist to help the low-income go to college. But, at the very least most can find the time to get a community college education. Agreed?

And, by the way, I know you can find some people who are absolutely unable to do anything productive with their lives. But they are the exception, and not the rule. Agreed?
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 6:13:18 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 3:11:11 PM, scissorhands7 wrote:
At 10/18/2008 10:36:59 AM, Zerosmelt wrote:
America is and has a been socialist society for many years. I'm not a socialist in the way many politicians view socialism. I'm a transhumanist. I believe that technology and the internet will progress to a level that renders government obsolete.

Thats a completely ridiculous and foolish idea.
We'll see if you think so in 10 years :D
Government was created for organization purposes and to provide constitutents with services that they could not otherwise produce on their own.

Exactly!! and soon we won't need gov't to provide these services.

1. National Defense
2. Research
3. charity incentives
4. Economic regulation

etc.

All of which will be provided or rendered obselete in the future. I don't think you understand the full ramifications of ubiqitous computer.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 6:36:33 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
We can worry about the ramifications of "ubiquitious computer" when they come. In the meantime, remember, computers can be blown up by Al Qaeda ( I am not under the impression that government is needed for research, and I consider 3 and 4 on Scissor's list to be bad things, but that still leaves national defense.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 7:10:18 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 6:36:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
We can worry about the ramifications of "ubiquitious computer" when they come. In the meantime, remember, computers can be blown up by Al Qaeda ( I am not under the impression that government is needed for research, and I consider 3 and 4 on Scissor's list to be bad things, but that still leaves national defense.)

should have read "ubiquitious computing" srry.

the ubiquitous computer will not be able to be blown up by anything... there are complex reasons for this.. do some research on the subject if you're actually interested. :D

second UC will render national defense obselete as there will be nothing to defend against. :D *ubiquitous* remember.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 7:12:33 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
It more or less organizes research R_R.

Additionally the whole computing thing is just ridiculous. If you want to talk fact talk socialism v capitalism.

If you want to enter fairy tale land then we can have an argument about computing as a solution.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.