Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The State of the World...

brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 2:08:51 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Is it just me, or does it seem like the world, in general, is slowly moving more and more toward socialism? Asia, Europe, the Americas... And now the government wants to socialize the banking system here, or at least the risk. The bailout bill failed today, which I count as a good thing. Any thoughts, not on the bailout specifically, but on the overall trend in the world today?
Don't I take care of them all?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 3:04:34 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
There's a reason for that yaknow.

It's because it's a better overall balance.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 8:44:31 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/30/2008 4:44:35 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
I think that's the nature of power-- powerful people always want more.

What does that have to do with socialism in the context we are talking about?
Don't I take care of them all?
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 8:51:55 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
The entire reason we have government is because one big thing representing all of us can often work better for the common good than a bunch of private entities can. Socialism in its raw form is an extreme of this theory, and it seems like we will find a balancing point somewhere between the extremes of anarchy and socialism, with some things being controlled by the government and others being controlled by private entities. I think for each thing we will weigh the pros and cons of each side, and while we may sometimes make wrong judgments, we will likely do what's best in the long run.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 4:42:47 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Britt I strongly suggest you pick up Ray Kurzweil's latest book. (if you don't already know it) I think it may put your obversation in an entirely new light.

We've been moving toward 'socialism' since we formed tribes. The problem is 'socialism' isn't what Marx, politians, or even sociologists think it is. We are moving toward something much more immense.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 4:54:32 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Where i sort of agree with beemor but i completely disagree that "we" will be deciding any of it. There is a trend that has been progressing since the big bang itself. And it is leading to one thing. We are puppets in this parade, just riding the wave. Or even better we are the wave. But the direction of the wave has been fixed since its conception.

In 1949 G. Orwell wrote about big brother; the screen that was everywhere, that knew everything about you and constantly monitored your everymove. Imagine how shocked Orwell would be today if we discovered Facebook and Google. Here we have big brother only everyone in the world willing gives their information away. And its wonderful. It is the direction we're headed.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 5:29:06 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
And just to clarify i am no socialist. The modern conceptions of socialism established by marx and hegel are horrifying.

perhaps this will clarify my position:

-A long long time ago the earth was covered with single cell organisms. They were all trying to survive. One day some of these organisms realized (metaphorically speaking) that if they bound themselves together to form ONE THING they could all benefit. As a group they could survive better than as single cells. The multicellular organism was born.

-A long long long time ago bits matter and energy were floating around the universe trying (metaphorically) to exist. One day they realized (metaphorically) that if they bound together to form one thing (larger bodies) they would be able to exist in a stable manner. Planets, stars and galaxies were born.

-A long long long long time ago energy was erratic trying to maintain itself. One day it realized if it bound itself together into a little bits it could maintain itself. So particles were born.

Now there are sentient beings. The past 100,000 years or so we have been binding ourselves together (tribes, city states, nations,...) to form one thing. Marx's dream was way off the mark. The idea that you establish a totalitarian regime and then dissolve it is absurd. The people themselves must establish the regime of the people. But marx had one fatal problem in his theory; the technology wasn't there. Cells need a means of communicating to operate as an organism. They use chemicals. Marx came along way before we had an analogous means. Now we do. -The Internet - Government was created to maintain order in society. The only reason it exists is bc one person couldn't exchange information with every other person very easily. The day in which we will be able to is very near. When it comes government will simply be unnecessary. This will be the next giant leap in the progression of the universe.

This thing the universe has been creating is just about ready to stand up. This is what the unibomber was trying to stop. But it can't be stopped lol. Bc it is the universe itself.
Derek.Gunn
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 5:30:20 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
As Rezz sez - a better balance.

Particularly a good idea with respect to health care, education, fire and security services.
Services where you want things done a particular way, and not subject to the profit motive.
There are exceptions - and that's why one has for example, private hospitals, too.

You'll find (if you talk to them) that few if any of the other 1st World countries regard themselves as "socialist" (which is regarded as a slightly different flavour of communism). They regard themselves as predominantly "centrist" - the successful parties typically fight for the centre.
Conversely, the US being one of the most right-wing nations...
actually... is there a more right wing first-world nation?
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 10:08:14 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Socialism is only so popular because the bulk of the population wants big daddy government to take care of them.

Personally I'm against it. There is a strict balance somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism that is the perfect form of government. I think we're swaying between the too extremes trying to find out what works best.
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.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 5:41:14 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Socialism is not about authoritarian regimes oppressing the masses; it is about moderate administrations governing for the whole of society, and not just those with the power, money and influence enact changes that only benefit wealthy or privileged citizens.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 7:10:47 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I strongly suggest you pick up Ray Kurzweil's latest book. (if you don't already know it) I think it may put your obversation in an entirely new light.

We've been moving toward 'socialism' since we formed tribes. The problem is 'socialism' isn't what Marx, politians, or even sociologists think it is. We are moving toward something much more immense.

Kurzweil is a kook and borderline science fiction... I'm not even sure how he relates to socialism?
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 7:55:57 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/2/2008 5:41:14 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Socialism is not about authoritarian regimes oppressing the masses; it is about moderate administrations governing for the whole of society, and not just those with the power, money and influence enact changes that only benefit wealthy or privileged citizens.

Its more about government taxing those who have been successful. Putting it in a big pot. Using part of it for their own purposes. And then sharing it with everyone and screwing an entire generation who is taxed for it but will receive no benefit at all (social security)

I'm sorry but unlike some people I dont have to have big daddy government take my money. I can save it well enough on my own without using it.

Additionally, since when did your success become everyone else's success? I remember that once upon a time if you were successful, you were successful. Not that you have 70% of that taxed and fed to the masses who never took the time to invent that or work that hard, or do the extra overtime, or research that stock deal, 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.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 9:46:33 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/2/2008 7:55:57 AM, scissorhands7 wrote:
At 10/2/2008 5:41:14 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Socialism is not about authoritarian regimes oppressing the masses; it is about moderate administrations governing for the whole of society, and not just those with the power, money and influence enact changes that only benefit wealthy or privileged citizens.

Its more about government taxing those who have been successful. Putting it in a big pot. Using part of it for their own purposes. And then sharing it with everyone and screwing an entire generation who is taxed for it but will receive no benefit at all (social security)

I'm sorry but unlike some people I dont have to have big daddy government take my money. I can save it well enough on my own without using it.

Additionally, since when did your success become everyone else's success? I remember that once upon a time if you were successful, you were successful. Not that you have 70% of that taxed and fed to the masses who never took the time to invent that or work that hard, or do the extra overtime, or research that stock deal, etc.

The top rate of tax in the US, unless I'm mistaken, is 35%, and truly wealthy people avoid paying even that by channelling their income through offshore accounts or by registering as non-domiciles.

Here in the UK, 50% of the nation's wealth is held by 5% of the population, but these are not, on the whole, "successful" people, they are aristocrats who inherited their wealth and who do not, as a rule, work.

By giving each member of these families a $1 million capital gains tax allowance (as was proposed by the opposition Tory Party in their annual conference this week) we would be further rewarding privilege at the expense of the socially and economically deprived.

Vote Labour for a Better Britain!

Source: http://www.worldwide-tax.com...
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 10:02:12 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I wasn't referring to the current US, but more or less Denmark and more developed socialist countries

Denmark has the highest income tax rate, with its top-taxed citizens paying 68% of their hard-earned crowns. The basic tax rate begins at 42%.
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.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 2:12:36 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/30/2008 10:08:14 PM, scissorhands7 wrote:
Socialism is only so popular because the bulk of the population wants big daddy government to take care of them.

kid of like religion huh
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 3:40:52 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Kurzweil is a kook and borderline science fiction... I'm not even sure how he relates to socialism?

kurzweil may be overly idealistic but he does offer an insurmountable amount of evidence to support his claims. His predictions have also been consistently right over the past few decades. What exactly do you have to support this claim?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 4:24:07 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Are we talking about the same Ray Kurzweil who thinks we are within 35 years of the singularity, and that current humans will be second class citizens?
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 4:40:45 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/2/2008 4:24:07 PM, JBlake wrote:
Are we talking about the same Ray Kurzweil who thinks we are within 35 years of the singularity, and that current humans will be second class citizens?

I am talking about ray kurzweil tech scientist from MIT. I don't think you are actually familiar with his claims.

he never claims we will be second class citizens... just the opposite in fact.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 4:58:05 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/2/2008 2:12:36 PM, Zerosmelt wrote:
At 9/30/2008 10:08:14 PM, scissorhands7 wrote:
Socialism is only so popular because the bulk of the population wants big daddy government to take care of them.


kid of like religion huh

The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
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.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 9:56:01 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

lame?? lol. really? lame? is that all? who cares what is lame.... when you want to know what is TRUE? How is lameness even relevant?

Jblake have you even read his books? The amount of evidence he sites is astounding. Discrediting someone without even reading their book is intellectually lazy. But of course you would never have done that now would you?

The fact is that his book has been highly lauded by some of the worlds most established organizations. No one took him seriously when he was making these claims 20-30 years ago. But bc so many of his predictions have come true in these decades people are starting to listen. There are solid arithmetic reasons why progress with happen so quickly. Unless you read his book you simply couldn't know them. So of course his claims would seem ridiculous.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 5:55:49 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 9:56:01 AM, Zerosmelt wrote:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

lame?? lol. really? lame? is that all? who cares what is lame.... when you want to know what is TRUE? How is lameness even relevant?

Well I really couldn't tell you, I would advise you to shoot an email to the person who made these quotes, however unfortunately Einstein is dead.

For future elements take a look at the "Atheism" thread I created and I'm sure you'll have some fun contesting my logic.
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
10/3/2008 5:57:10 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 9:56:01 AM, Zerosmelt wrote:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

lame?? lol. really? lame? is that all? who cares what is lame.... when you want to know what is TRUE? How is lameness even relevant?

To truely answer your question, I think Einstein was questioning the point of science if there was no religion.
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.
serendipity66
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 8:18:05 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/2/2008 10:02:12 AM, scissorhands7 wrote:
I wasn't referring to the current US, but more or less Denmark and more developed socialist countries

Denmark has the highest income tax rate, with its top-taxed citizens paying 68% of their hard-earned crowns. The basic tax rate begins at 42%.

How on earth is this comment about Denmark justified?? Denmark is a constitutional monarchy – hardly a socialist regime - with a progressive tax system ranging from 15% at the bottom to about 27%. And where are these other developed socialist countries? Unfortunately there aren't any and unfortunately no, we are not moving more towards socialism-otherwise perhaps there would be less acceptance of materialism and greed and more acceptance for the notion that one group of people cannot possibly be worth or have earned millions whilst others starve in shanty towns.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 12:35:44 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"Socialism is not about authoritarian regimes oppressing the masses;"
Of course not... it's about the masses electing authoritarian regimes to oppress everyone who is not part of the masses (which, it happens, means everyone who has ever created anything exceptional.) Then, when those are killed off, and they need a new sacrificial goat, they take the top off what's left and declare those the new "Elites." Then, when those are killed off... repeat until everyone but the braindead are dead. Those left will die on their own.

That is the only result the supremacy of government over the economy (the supremacy of force over value, the supremacy of destruction over creation) can have when given free rein.
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
10/12/2008 2:32:29 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/11/2008 7:46:00 PM, Harlan wrote:
I'd like to share this video, and this seems the topic it would fit in best. This guy's name is Taalam acey.


Personally i cannot stand this kind of propaganda that is totally void of any logical argument. It just makes people irate without knowing why.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 2:37:47 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Personally i cannot stand this kind of propaganda that is totally void of any logical argument. It just makes people irate without knowing why.

You may not be able to tell the difference, but it wasn't supposed to be an argument or essay; it was poetry, it was spoken word. There are different niches, and that video was not supposed to serve the niche of a long statistical report which carefully lays out different facts and what not, it was just a guy speaking from his soul.

Some people can't appreciate things of that sort, I guess.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 2:54:06 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/12/2008 2:37:47 PM, Harlan wrote:
Personally i cannot stand this kind of propaganda that is totally void of any logical argument. It just makes people irate without knowing why.

You may not be able to tell the difference, but it wasn't supposed to be an argument or essay; it was poetry, it was spoken word. There are different niches, and that video was not supposed to serve the niche of a long statistical report which carefully lays out different facts and what not, it was just a guy speaking from his soul.

Some people can't appreciate things of that sort, I guess.

i understood that Harlan, and i appreciate you posting this. Sorry if i came off a bit to harsh. My problem with this kind of stuff is that I know tons and tons of people who are consumed and utterly convinced by this sort of stuff... that is the problem. People need to realize this is just art and nothing he says should be taken seriously without proper examination. i just can't stand seeing so many people falling prey to such unreasoned xenophobic 'art'