Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Let's Privatise the nation!

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 4:03:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's Privatise the nation! Nation State is an obsolete concept, it is oppressive as well as inefficient. Private corporation can do a mush better job when it come to management of finance and organisation. So let's end it once and for all!

To privatise the nation we will have to:

1. Transform every nation state in to a gigantic public corporation with value equal to total asset that its hold (net): gold reserve, building infrastructure, equity of any company it had previously purchased.

*Note that publicly owned property such as privately own land and resident will not be included in this asset. Nation can no longer requisite land from private owner for its own project such as road construction.

2. Because nation state is own by every member of its citizen, the citizen of such nation will be granted a stock equity with value equal to Nation Public (I will call the corporation that is transform from the nation state with this name from now on) divide by number of citizen it currently have in possession.

3.Legislative and Judicial branch will not be touched, the citizen will elected its representatives to this institution the same way it did before the transformation. This two branch will technically act as an employer of police force which will still be supply by the Nation Public.

4. Tax will be abolished, However the Nation State will have to resort to any mean possible to source for its income which may resulted in price increased of basic infrastructure such as electricity, water, toll way etc. Dividend will be provided if the Nation Public has reached the stage of profitability.

5. Treaty,trade agreement and other international treaty will be kept, but will remain effective to the Nation Public which succeed the nation state which had came in to an agreement with you only. That is to say, if you are in a custom barrier that raise 25 percent tax toward the outsider, you can only do so with your own product and service such as electricity, water, state own corporation or foreign corporation that has sign up for license to operate in state own property. Local corporation which do not operate on Nation Public property is not owned by the state and will not subject to any taxed agreed on by Nation Public.

6. The rest of organization structure will be the same of any public company, no prime minister, no king, no president, only CEO who will be hired (with voter approval) in the same manner of any public corporation.

With the establishment of Nation Public I hope that several issue with the nation state can be resolved more efficiently which included:

1. Immigration: with citizenship trad-able in stock market globally, you can practically resolve all the problem of illegal immigrant because citizenship us no longer limited by border. If you want to be part of, for example France Nation Public you can simply buy the stock. A privately own land can also be purchase privately with no state intervention.

2. Efficient Leadership: the nature of corporation allow for immediate consequence for good and bad decision enacted by its leader (CEO). If management is poorly done, the stockholders could fire their executive at any time. In case the power is monopolise and the majority of share is bought by the CEO, poor management will result in degraded stock price which affect the wealth of its holder (in short CEO will hurt the most). So efficient leadership is required for survival of its CEO.

and many more...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 6:02:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What about the Board of Directors?

Many companies fail within the 1st year. More within the 5th year. Most by year 50.

What do the stockholders do when USA.corp fails?

Can I sell my stock? What happens to me after I do? Do I get kicked off corporate lands and any surrounding lands?

If the Legislature is hard up for money, can they send the police on hired kill missions?

...and many more.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 7:29:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your house is your land, and no body will going to kick you out even when you have sold all of the share you have on the USA corp. As for the rest, well if the the company decided to charge you for driving on their road, even if you hold a share you will have to comply with it any way.

Like even though, I bought part of Pepsi Corp, that doesn't mean I would have a free drink whenever I want.

You can, of course, buy and sell ownership of Nation Public of yours or any one, so long as there is a demand and supply. It doesn't change your relationship with any Nation Public, except for the fact that you will have dividend and share price is fluctuate according to market mechanism. You will pay for any service you received from Nation Public or other corporation like the rest of the citizen.

The law still defined by territory though, it is like you only privatise the executive branch of your country.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 7:47:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And if your USA is bankrupt or being acquired.. ...well you better sold it off before that happen, but at least you got a choice, not forcibly go down with it.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 7:48:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What if I'm bleeding to death due to a freak accident and don't have the money to pay for a doctor? Too bad? Life's rough? Get over it?

Now, what about education? Let's say my parents can't afford it at all, or choose not to, but I am a genius who would be much more beneficial to society in the future as an educated person than an uneducated person?

If the company pays me to dump raw sewage on my land, that's cool?

Who will continue to explore space?*

Who will build super-colliders so that our understanding of physics continues to grow?**

(*space tourism is not the same as space exploration. there is no plausibly profitable reason for a company which may or may not be solvent in 20 years to explore space.)

(**this kind of research will likely pay off one day, but that day is well into the future, and possibly longer than an average lifetime away. what company would possibly invest in this? Corporations want increased quarterly profits, and increased sales, not R&D with a 75 year tail.)?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 9:56:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 4:03:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Let's Privatise the nation! Nation State is an obsolete concept, it is oppressive as well as inefficient. Private corporation can do a mush better job when it come to management of finance and organisation. So let's end it once and for all!

Corporations require the state for their existence. They are legal entities defined into existence under monocentric coercive law who engage largely in political entrepreneurship like lobbying and bribery to gain an advantage over their less litigious competitors.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 10:12:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 9:56:50 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/16/2013 4:03:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Let's Privatise the nation! Nation State is an obsolete concept, it is oppressive as well as inefficient. Private corporation can do a mush better job when it come to management of finance and organisation. So let's end it once and for all!

Corporations require the state for their existence. They are legal entities defined into existence under monocentric coercive law who engage largely in political entrepreneurship like lobbying and bribery to gain an advantage over their less litigious competitors.

Then so do sole proprietorships, as they are currently defined, or law firms in partnership agreements.

Corporations, when originally temporary entities, were incredibly useful for this country.

We ran into a problem when we stopped using the corporation and began letting the corporation use us.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 1:41:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 7:48:17 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
What if I'm bleeding to death due to a freak accident and don't have the money to pay for a doctor? Too bad? Life's rough? Get over it?

Now, what about education? Let's say my parents can't afford it at all, or choose not to, but I am a genius who would be much more beneficial to society in the future as an educated person than an uneducated person?

If the company pays me to dump raw sewage on my land, that's cool?

Who will continue to explore space?*

Who will build super-colliders so that our understanding of physics continues to grow?**

(*space tourism is not the same as space exploration. there is no plausibly profitable reason for a company which may or may not be solvent in 20 years to explore space.)

(**this kind of research will likely pay off one day, but that day is well into the future, and possibly longer than an average lifetime away. what company would possibly invest in this? Corporations want increased quarterly profits, and increased sales, not R&D with a 75 year tail.)?

Well it is not like that you can influence the nation state health care or education in anyway but voting didn't you. In corporation, we also required a voting when it come to drastic change of policy, that is to say, if they had been giving free education and/or health care program and they want to stop it, they will have to call you as a voter to vote. However, increase in spending will also decrease a dividend you got from the Nation Public, and if they make losses, your share price will drop, making it harder to trade, and some of the facility might need to be close down to maintain profit level or whatever policy you are voting for. So basically you as a voter have to balance it yourself, how far will you give it to the public and how mush to keep for prosperity which I think is perfectly fair. Normal corporation is also facing this kind of decision-making right now, how mush to invest for CSR?, should we introduce more environmental friendly measure that would required investment? Scholarship, how mush should we gave out, so the public remain please with us and doesn't affect shareholder that mush? This way of thinking is what make the CEO of any corporation mush more efficient in management than politician. They do not face voter every 4-5 years, the vote take place every year, and its influence can put a pressure on the executive in a mare second when stock price start to fluctuate.

As for the law, as I mentioned several time already, the legal institution, both legislative and jurisdiction will not be touched and will remain working in the way it has been. That is to say you still elect an MP to the parliament, and the law still effective as per boundary of the previous nations. So if you are to register your nation to the law, you can do it in the exactly same way.

The purpose of this model, is to eliminate the inefficiency of nation state executive and replace it with more flexible corporate style. It also properly place the weight of the decision on the shoulder of the decision-maker. You want to go socialist? Fine, but there is a price for it, like everything else, if you ok with that go ahead and do it. If not, you have a choice to leave and look for other group of people who would offer the policy that you want. And don't argue that the socialist policy might not be offered. if there is a demand for it, then somebody would have answer it eventually. If not and you are a very small minority, then you should embrace what the majority has favoured. Or form your own company, if you have the will and ability to do it. Like the business world, there is a stock that has little growth but offer a lot of dividend and the company that never yield but growth exceptionally fast. The choice is yours, and I think that is the fairest way of administration in the world.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 12:37:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 10:33:13 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
Is this thread serious or satire?

It is just a scenario at most, although I seriously want to discussion about its actual feasibility and subsequent benefits (and losses)
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 12:43:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Have you heard of Anarcho Capitalism? It's related to what you are talking about. Essentially the idea is to abolish the state and let the market provide the services which are currently provided by government.

Ethics of Liberty (available for free here) http://mises.org...
sketches the outline of what a libertarian legal system would look like.

http://mises.org...

For a new liberty is a manifesto on this concept.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 12:51:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 12:43:05 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Have you heard of Anarcho Capitalism? It's related to what you are talking about. Essentially the idea is to abolish the state and let the market provide the services which are currently provided by government.

Ethics of Liberty (available for free here) http://mises.org...
sketches the outline of what a libertarian legal system would look like.

http://mises.org...

For a new liberty is a manifesto on this concept.

Libertarian, yes I know it and I know that this model is going really far to that side of spectrum.

What I want to know though, is not principle but for this model only, is whether its practicality and advantages looks convincing to you. If yes/no why?

It is a political experiment.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 3:27:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, your brilliant idea here is to turn our already quite plutocratic polity into an even more unabashed system of corporate hegemony. I for one vote nay. Hey, here's a more novel proposal, how about we socialize the nation! You know, gear our socioeconomic form of life for the common good, for the well-being of all, rather than the special interests of corporations and capitalists. Well, such an idea arguably has a bit more merit from a social-justice and socio-ethical persective than the sort of neoliberal caca you're advocating.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 4:00:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 4:03:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Let's Privatise the nation! Nation State is an obsolete concept, it is oppressive as well as inefficient. Private corporation can do a mush better job when it come to management of finance and organisation. So let's end it once and for all!

To privatise the nation we will have to:

1. Transform every nation state in to a gigantic public corporation with value equal to total asset that its hold (net): gold reserve, building infrastructure, equity of any company it had previously purchased.

*Note that publicly owned property such as privately own land and resident will not be included in this asset. Nation can no longer requisite land from private owner for its own project such as road construction.

2. Because nation state is own by every member of its citizen, the citizen of such nation will be granted a stock equity with value equal to Nation Public (I will call the corporation that is transform from the nation state with this name from now on) divide by number of citizen it currently have in possession.

3.Legislative and Judicial branch will not be touched, the citizen will elected its representatives to this institution the same way it did before the transformation. This two branch will technically act as an employer of police force which will still be supply by the Nation Public.

4. Tax will be abolished, However the Nation State will have to resort to any mean possible to source for its income which may resulted in price increased of basic infrastructure such as electricity, water, toll way etc. Dividend will be provided if the Nation Public has reached the stage of profitability.

5. Treaty,trade agreement and other international treaty will be kept, but will remain effective to the Nation Public which succeed the nation state which had came in to an agreement with you only. That is to say, if you are in a custom barrier that raise 25 percent tax toward the outsider, you can only do so with your own product and service such as electricity, water, state own corporation or foreign corporation that has sign up for license to operate in state own property. Local corporation which do not operate on Nation Public property is not owned by the state and will not subject to any taxed agreed on by Nation Public.

6. The rest of organization structure will be the same of any public company, no prime minister, no king, no president, only CEO who will be hired (with voter approval) in the same manner of any public corporation.

With the establishment of Nation Public I hope that several issue with the nation state can be resolved more efficiently which included:

1. Immigration: with citizenship trad-able in stock market globally, you can practically resolve all the problem of illegal immigrant because citizenship us no longer limited by border. If you want to be part of, for example France Nation Public you can simply buy the stock. A privately own land can also be purchase privately with no state intervention.

2. Efficient Leadership: the nature of corporation allow for immediate consequence for good and bad decision enacted by its leader (CEO). If management is poorly done, the stockholders could fire their executive at any time. In case the power is monopolise and the majority of share is bought by the CEO, poor management will result in degraded stock price which affect the wealth of its holder (in short CEO will hurt the most). So efficient leadership is required for survival of its CEO.

and many more...

Surely this is satire...
Tsar of DDO
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 4:28:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 4:00:34 PM, YYW wrote:

Surely this is satire...

I wouldn't be too sure, as there are quite a number of loony libertarians on our beloved DDO.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 4:31:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 4:28:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:00:34 PM, YYW wrote:

Surely this is satire...

I wouldn't be too sure, as there are quite a number of loony libertarians on our beloved DDO.

I mean... this is so insane it couldn't be anything but satire.
Tsar of DDO
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 5:13:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 4:31:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:28:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:00:34 PM, YYW wrote:

Surely this is satire...

I wouldn't be too sure, as there are quite a number of loony libertarians on our beloved DDO.

I mean... this is so insane it couldn't be anything but satire.

I checked out his profile and he provides zero info about himself, making it quite difficult to get a handle on where he's coming from politically or ideologically. Apparently he fears being ideologically prejudged and pigeonholed, declaring that "I don't want you to know about me because you will judge me by my prejudice not my soul". Bad choice of words, as it acknowledges that he does indeed have a political or philosophical prejudice or bias, and merely doesn't wish to be forthcoming with us about it. Well, his bad choice of words then betrays a bit of bad faith. Mm-hmm, FYI friend suttichart, we all have our biases, having a bias per se is nothing to be ashamed of. Rather, honesty, once again, is the best policy, i.e. being honest and upfront about the ideological subtext and nature of your ideas and stances is more conducive to productive dialogue than keeping your partners in conversation in the dark. Also, I would point out that one's prejudice is certainly not irrelevant to, rather it's a significant part of the content of one's soul or character. Which is to say that it's a bit facile as well as pretentious for you to simply dismiss the relevance of your particular prejudice in a fashion designed to make you sound deep. Yes, dispense with your unforthcoming, facile, and faux deep MO and engage us in genuine good faith, you'll find it much more rewarding.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 12:41:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 5:13:20 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:31:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:28:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:00:34 PM, YYW wrote:

Surely this is satire...

I wouldn't be too sure, as there are quite a number of loony libertarians on our beloved DDO.

I mean... this is so insane it couldn't be anything but satire.

I checked out his profile and he provides zero info about himself, making it quite difficult to get a handle on where he's coming from politically or ideologically. Apparently he fears being ideologically prejudged and pigeonholed, declaring that "I don't want you to know about me because you will judge me by my prejudice not my soul". Bad choice of words, as it acknowledges that he does indeed have a political or philosophical prejudice or bias, and merely doesn't wish to be forthcoming with us about it. Well, his bad choice of words then betrays a bit of bad faith. Mm-hmm, FYI friend suttichart, we all have our biases, having a bias per se is nothing to be ashamed of. Rather, honesty, once again, is the best policy, i.e. being honest and upfront about the ideological subtext and nature of your ideas and stances is more conducive to productive dialogue than keeping your partners in conversation in the dark. Also, I would point out that one's prejudice is certainly not irrelevant to, rather it's a significant part of the content of one's soul or character. Which is to say that it's a bit facile as well as pretentious for you to simply dismiss the relevance of your particular prejudice in a fashion designed to make you sound deep. Yes, dispense with your unforthcoming, facile, and faux deep MO and engage us in genuine good faith, you'll find it much more rewarding.

Point is, I want you to ask not just read one line of word and assume that I will have to be what you think. I found people on this website are too quick to judge people simply because of their believe, when someone say capitalist many of you will say pig, without even care about what he/she is talking about. If one say feminist, then it is often followed with bitch, again without really concern the point said.

Now sine you are kind enough to even look at my profile I will tell you, that I dislike socialist in general and hate communist in particular. That doesn't mean that I will never accept any idea or argument from that side of spectrum, some social policy is brilliant just that it's bad most of the time.

As for this model, as I mentioned earlier, is a political experiment. I like to to create scenario when one form of ideology is push to the extreme and see what kind of consequences we could get from it. If it is good, then we know that we are in the right direction, obstacle simply should be overcame so the final result is obtained. If it is bad, then we have something to remind ourselves that at the end of the road is not paradise and should take care to decide how far we are going to go.

I still defend the point of this model though. I think people is to quick to request social policy, if they really want to ask for it at least they should know the price. Privatisation of nation allow one to truly own the country they live in and is better aware of pro and cons of their request. Spend as may for free medication as you wish, but remember it's your money too, if you spend without responsibility it will collapse. The demand of people is limitless, if you act like spoil child who demand everything they need and want from the society, someday there will be none left.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 2:04:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 12:41:05 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 3/18/2013 5:13:20 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:31:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:28:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:00:34 PM, YYW wrote:

Surely this is satire...

I wouldn't be too sure, as there are quite a number of loony libertarians on our beloved DDO.

I mean... this is so insane it couldn't be anything but satire.

I checked out his profile and he provides zero info about himself, making it quite difficult to get a handle on where he's coming from politically or ideologically. Apparently he fears being ideologically prejudged and pigeonholed, declaring that "I don't want you to know about me because you will judge me by my prejudice not my soul". Bad choice of words, as it acknowledges that he does indeed have a political or philosophical prejudice or bias, and merely doesn't wish to be forthcoming with us about it. Well, his bad choice of words then betrays a bit of bad faith. Mm-hmm, FYI friend suttichart, we all have our biases, having a bias per se is nothing to be ashamed of. Rather, honesty, once again, is the best policy, i.e. being honest and upfront about the ideological subtext and nature of your ideas and stances is more conducive to productive dialogue than keeping your partners in conversation in the dark. Also, I would point out that one's prejudice is certainly not irrelevant to, rather it's a significant part of the content of one's soul or character. Which is to say that it's a bit facile as well as pretentious for you to simply dismiss the relevance of your particular prejudice in a fashion designed to make you sound deep. Yes, dispense with your unforthcoming, facile, and faux deep MO and engage us in genuine good faith, you'll find it much more rewarding.

Point is, I want you to ask not just read one line of word and assume that I will have to be what you think. I found people on this website are too quick to judge people simply because of their believe, when someone say capitalist many of you will say pig, ...

Actually, it's more likely that if someone, such as yours truly, advocates doing away with the economic and political dominance of capitalists that "libertarians" will come out of the ole woodwork to condemn him/her as a vile "statist" or "commie". In other words, yes, I'm quite familiar with the experience of being dismissively dealt with by my ideological opponents, but wishing to avoid pigeonholing is not a justification for refusing to be upfront about where one is really coming from.

Now sine you are kind enough to even look at my profile I will tell you, that I dislike socialist in general and hate communist in particular.

I'm sure that you assume that saying "I hate communists" is a pretty straightforward statement that requires little clarification, but I must ask what specifically is your definition of a "communist"? Well, it's not as though the signifier "communist" has only one signified and referent after all. The term can actually refer to everything from the Apostles of Jesus who shared all of their resources communally, to the murderous myrmidons who carried out the orders of Joseph Stalin. Mm-hmm, one can perhaps hate one form of communism and not another. For instance, I could, and do, say that I'm a communist. But then again I could also say that I hate communists, of the tyrannical and totalitarian ilk of Nicolae Ceausescu or Kim Jong-il. So you see, your statement isn't really straightforward at all; it assumes too much, i.e. it assumes that we all have the same definition or stereotype of a "communist" in mind. Which is ironic, given your aversion to ideological stereotyping. So again, I put the question, how do you define the form of communism that you hate, and do you recognize the existence of other forms of communism? Or do you perhaps feel okay about tarring everyone on the left with the same brush you'd use on a Stalinist commissar or a member of the North Korean Supreme People's Assembly?

That doesn't mean that I will never accept any idea or argument from that side of spectrum, some social policy is brilliant just that it's bad most of the time.

Okay, so you recognize that communism isn't merely a pack of evil policies and ideas. But you still persist in condemning communism in a pretty sweeping fashion without making any effort to define it.

As for this model, as I mentioned earlier, is a political experiment. I like to to create scenario when one form of ideology is push to the extreme and see what kind of consequences we could get from it. If it is good, then we know that we are in the right direction, ...

The consequences of creating a form of society strictly based on market fundamentalism would quite predictably be economically and socially calamitous.

... Privatisation of nation

The privatization of a society's economy, public institutions and services, and political authority would = handing over just about total economic and political dominance to a corporatocracy that has already amply demonstrated its incorrigible tendency to conduct itself in a fashion guided by its own self-interest and not the best interests of our society and its average citizens.

... if you act like spoil child who demand everything they need and want from the society, someday there will be none left.

Ah, a bit of familiar and trite "libertarian" rubbish that reduces socialists to spoilt and lazy children who want to be taken care of by a "nanny state". Yep, I'm starting to detect a quite familiar malodor and have a pretty fair idea of where you're coming from now.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 3:21:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is written in one of my text book so I assumed that it is a common knowledge. but you right I should have provided it any way.

Communism = a combination of socialism policy and authoritarian government.
When it come to this combination, there is really no compromise for me. My family has suffered a lot from communist state and I will defend its condemnation to the very end.

Classic Capitalism = capitalism economy with democratic government.

Socialist Democracy = socialism economy with democratic government.

Fascism = capitalism economy with authoritarian government

I didn't make this up, it just written on the book.

Socialism: Any non-profit state sponsor program. It may be made for social benefit or not, that I am not really concern. Generally I against the fact that the state should throw away my tax to god-know-who or even general public. If somebody is to do that, it should be the owner of the money itself. But again depend on the outcome of the program.

Another reason why I didn't show my political ideology is that I don't really have one. You can say that I am willing to believe in anything whatsoever (except communism) so long as it further my interest and those I am associated with. So far you can say that I am consequentialist, so long as political program suit me in someway it is fine.

That is not really related to the case I brought though. Frankly, I think the program is very close to egalitarian socialism in practice. Basically, the state property is equally distributed to all of its citizens with corporate style management to maximize the benefit it cold produce. whether to provide its to general public or invest it to maximize wealth is a decision still carried by all of its citizen, if you are not fool enough to sell all the share of course, even your share is a couple of dollar, the right to vote is still yours. but one thing I admit, is that I am quite supportive to commercial corporation for the moment, the system used are the most effective most responsible management I ever seen. It is not perfect but it certainly far better than any government I ever seen.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 3:35:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 3:21:49 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
It is written in one of my text book so I assumed that it is a common knowledge. but you right I should have provided it any way.

Communism = a combination of socialism policy and authoritarian government.

Again, I would point out that this isn't the only form of communism conceived of by man!

Classic Capitalism = capitalism economy with democratic government.

Capitalism inherently tends to corrupt and co-opt, i.e. to subvert and make a lie of democracy. Capitalism, in fact, could be said to be antithetical to authentic democracy.

Another reason why I didn't show my political ideology is that I don't really have one.

Oh, you definitely have a point of view, you'd just prefer not to think of yourself as an ideologue.

You can say that I am willing to believe in anything whatsoever (except communism)

As I said, you have the made-up-mind of an ideologue on the question of communism.

... but one thing I admit, is that I am quite supportive to commercial corporation for the moment, ...

You just don't seem to appreciate how dangerous it would be to further empower our already quite overempowered corporations.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:52:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Make your point then...

Actually this all of this definitions I provided is simply for you and me to have a clear understanding of what I am referring to when I am talking about communism, capitalism etc. If your version of communism is not a combination of authoritarian government with socialist policy, I am all ear.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 2:56:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A better definition of communism is 'state ownership of the means of production' and given the fact that individuals practicing this ideology murdered almost a hundred million innocent civilians in their own countries I can see why you would be reticent to adopt it.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:15:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 2:56:27 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
A better definition of communism is 'state ownership of the means of production' and given the fact that individuals practicing this ideology murdered almost a hundred million innocent civilians in their own countries I can see why you would be reticent to adopt it.

That is actually part of the reason, the fact that Stalin or Mao caused death in a million is mostly because of their stupidity, but the again authoritarian government tend to produce incapable leader any way.

I can accept a form of authoritarian leadership, so long as it is not blend with socialist policy. Socialist policy trade future prosperity for present comfort, it is like you decide to buy a car rather than keep it for a house, while it is acceptable if everybody willingly gave resource for it, requisition under force is robbery no matter how you put it. Regardless of reason or ideology the communist people might claim that doesn't change the fact that they are criminal, thief. Given your wealth for the poor doesn't reprieve their crime, if Robinhood is caught and I am his judge I would have him hang for his crime regardless of his intention.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 3:23:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:15:13 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

I can accept a form of authoritarian leadership, so long as it is not blend with socialist policy.

I see, so you'd be okay with the dictatorship of a corporatocracy or even some form of fascism but not a democratic form of socialism simply because you have a visceral cognitive/ideological bias against anything branded with that epithet. Not exactly a very intellectually legitimate position.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 3:28:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 2:56:27 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
A better definition of communism is 'state ownership of the means of production' and given the fact that individuals practicing this ideology murdered almost a hundred million innocent civilians in their own countries I can see why you would be reticent to adopt it.

Reductio ad Stalinum. That is, you merely facilely lump anything that might be called socialism or communism into the same evil category as Stalinism or Soviet-style statism and then glibly dismiss it. Quite intellectually unsound and unimpressive.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 6:10:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Personally my take on Robin Hood wasn't that he was robbing the rich, to give money to the poor, but rather he was robbing the hated tax collectors, to give the money back to the people they had stolen it from.

Communism leads inexorably towards totalitarianism. That is the result of eliminating private property. When your life is entirely in the hands of government bureaucrats... it's not a pleasant thing. Communism gives total power to the state, to bureaucrats, to government officials - it rewards apparatchiks at the expense of commoners. Everything becomes political. You must beg for everything, you are a slave to the state.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 6:33:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 6:10:31 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Personally my take on Robin Hood wasn't that he was robbing the rich, to give money to the poor, but rather he was robbing the hated tax collectors, to give the money back to the people they had stolen it from.

Communism leads inexorably towards totalitarianism. That is the result of eliminating private property. When your life is entirely in the hands of government bureaucrats... it's not a pleasant thing. Communism gives total power to the state, to bureaucrats, to government officials - it rewards apparatchiks at the expense of commoners. Everything becomes political. You must beg for everything, you are a slave to the state.

Reductio ad Sovietum. And what about the way that our system's unequal economic power relations conduces to the excessive empowerment of a corporate elite and its corruption/subversion of democracy to the point that we actually live under an unofficial plutocracy, under the regime of the rich where we must often go begging to capitalist bosses and their political lackeys, does this concern or distress you?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 4:12:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 6:33:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/20/2013 6:10:31 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Personally my take on Robin Hood wasn't that he was robbing the rich, to give money to the poor, but rather he was robbing the hated tax collectors, to give the money back to the people they had stolen it from.

Communism leads inexorably towards totalitarianism. That is the result of eliminating private property. When your life is entirely in the hands of government bureaucrats... it's not a pleasant thing. Communism gives total power to the state, to bureaucrats, to government officials - it rewards apparatchiks at the expense of commoners. Everything becomes political. You must beg for everything, you are a slave to the state.

Reductio ad Sovietum. And what about the way that our system's unequal economic power relations conduces to the excessive empowerment of a corporate elite and its corruption/subversion of democracy to the point that we actually live under an unofficial plutocracy, under the regime of the rich where we must often go begging to capitalist bosses and their political lackeys, does this concern or distress you?

I agreed with you that we are not in a state of total democracy now a day. However, I would just prefer authoritarian oligarchy rather than authoritarian socialist. At least with the corporation I can chose and work my way up to where I wanted to be, in authoritarian socialist I can be only what the society feel best for the society, and even that would only come in best case scenario.

I also prefer better productivity rather than better distribution of resource. I believe the source of all misery is the lack of resource, and in long run, the only way to solve that issue is to increase production. Even though some group might have more than other, in the end when they can't consume all the resource they will give or trade it with the rest of the people. That is how it should be distributed. I met a lot of capitalist who share their resource with the rest of the society, donate to the poor, arrange for scholarship for poor but capable student. To the lesser extent is to build a temple, I am not really a fan of religion but temple also shelter the poor, gave poor children education (at least gave them literacy), so it could be said to benefit society as well. sometime they spend on this philanthropic program even more than the tax itself. It is a huge assumption that the rich only use wealth for their own interest. I believe in the virtue of human rest, that if given a chance everyone will like to do good things, and if you manage to give that chance (make them rich) to as many people as possible, in the end you will have a better society.