|
| Thread: Why is socialism so prevalent in online communities? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 08, 2009 10:26 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
You're missing my point about the guns. Gangs are going to have guns anyway - it's a question of whether normal people have guns or not.
Quote:
People clean after themself on the work, or the janitor is also the supervisor or similar.
Well, that would certainly be a waste of people's efforts! People would be far more productive if they spent an extra ten minutes working and then used the surplus to hire a janitor.
Quote:
Or to put it another way, are you against that the farmer is reading books in his spare time? Not much of a difference.
If the farmer is most productive at being a farmer, then he will be a farmer. If not, he should be something else. If he reads books in his spare time, he pursues leisure, which is fine, but if it takes away from his work, then he becomes less productive and thus poorer. This is why brain surgeons are not janitors "in their spare time".
TheDeath:
Quote:
I mean, the "tyrant" which is called the "majority" decides what should property be, what its price is, and stuff like that
Hold on, you don't understand. It's not like 51% of the people get together in a field and the plan everything. That's democratic socialism, not capitalism.  Capitalism is inherently without any centrally planned force - that is, it is the result of individual choices, not of collective agreement. The price of bread is set by the buyers' and sellers' desires, not by popular will.
And I don't suppose you think monopolies are good, do you?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 10:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
del_diablo:
You're missing my point about the guns. Gangs are going to have guns anyway - it's a question of whether normal people have guns or not.
No, your missing my point on the petty thugs.
Quote:
Well, that would certainly be a waste of people's efforts! People would be far more productive if they spent an extra ten minutes working and then used the surplus to hire a janitor.
Then again, how much time is 10 minutes?
Quote:
If the farmer is most productive at being a farmer, then he will be a farmer. If not, he should be something else. If he reads books in his spare time, he pursues leisure, which is fine, but if it takes away from his work, then he becomes less productive and thus poorer.
Wrong tread mate? And again you seem to have no clue.
If i plant full my field, and i do the rest of the process while i treat my cattle well. I would still have alot of other time on my hands anyway. Stop ignoring the point.
Quote:
Hold on, you don't understand. It's not like 51% of the people get together in a field and the plan everything. That's democratic socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is inherently without any centrally planned force - that is, it is the result of individual choices, not of collective agreement. The price of bread is set by the buyers' and sellers' desires, not by popular will.
You know, who said central planners existed in most forms of socialisme?
Flat eqonomi got little to nothing to do with socialisme.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 11:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Flat eqonomi got little to nothing to do with socialisme.
Totally offtopic status achieved. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 11:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How much is 10 minutes?
multiply ten minutes with 365 with all the people who work for you...
That's how much time you lost, when you simply could've hired someone else to do it who is specialised in this.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 11:57 PM |
|
Edited by Wolfman at 23:59, 08 Mar 2009.
|
For the amount of words in this thread, not a lot is being said.
There is so much ideological BS in here it's ridiculous. Has anyone anything to say about the real world? We don't live inside a vacuum where these theories may work. We live in the real world where, like it or not, people think differently. They have different histories and different prejudices. People, as a general rule, and not perfect and certainly are not all the same.
The biggest problem with most of the arguments in here is that it doesn't allow for freedom. In most all of the theories put forward here, it seems that people are taken out of the equation.
You can't have freedom in a society where the government determines what your job is, how much you make, how creative you are, and that is what is being suggested here.
People need to be free to function on their own. If I want to be a teacher I have every right to be. I shouldn't be forced to be a janitor or something just because the government want me to.
If I want to start my own business because I have an original or clever idea, why should the government stop me? What right do they have to stop me? It is by my authority that the government exists. Too often the government forgets that they get their power from the people, that's why I'm active in the political process.
This socialism vs. capitalism talk is a waste of hot air. No one is going to agree because as long as one side preaches and attacks the other side, the other side goes on the defensive and argues not necessarily what they believe. And there's no end to it. You can't argue in absolutes, which is what it looks like is happening here.
Can we step back and look at issues instead of preaching ridiculous ideologies?
EDIT:
Also, no one is ever going to take away my right to own a gun. If I want to protect myself, that is my right. I will not sacrifice myself by offering up any means to protect myself and allow only the bad guys to have weapons. That is a foolish idea.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 12:08 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:09, 09 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
Hold on, you don't understand. It's not like 51% of the people get together in a field and the plan everything. That's democratic socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is inherently without any centrally planned force - that is, it is the result of individual choices, not of collective agreement. The price of bread is set by the buyers' and sellers' desires, not by popular will.
So if I wanna go and bulldoze that multi-millionaire's fifth house, and the police puts me to jail for that, it means I live in a Democratic Socialist country?
Don't you get it? People may or may not respect his "property" (which he doesn't even deserve mind you, I most certainly don't), but who ENFORCES it? Who prevents me from bulldozing his massive land/home? The people? I don't think so.
You know capitalism always sounds good with "people trade however they want!" or with simple farmer & blacksmith examples, but that's too simplistic. It doesn't take into account WHERE it comes from -- i.e where does the farmer get his food FROM (and processes it then)? From his "land"? How did he get that land? Bought it off from God? Seriously...
Quote:
And I don't suppose you think monopolies are good, do you?
No they aren't good because they are after profits (and they can thus set them as high as they want as long as people can't get it anywhere else). Competition is only good if the goal is profit. Otherwise, it is simply "in the way".
@Wolfman: regarding the gun issue, while I do agree on most points regarding gun ownership, one must wonder where do we draw the line?
I mean, why do we allow only the "bad" guys to get nukes? Let's make them legal for individuals
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 12:09 AM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted March 09, 2009 12:11 AM |
|
|
what?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 12:12 AM |
|
|
Glad to see my points fall on deaf ears.
And the line? The line is at the edge of my property, don't cross it and you'll be fine. 
That's right I said property, I have a right to own things too. We are not American Indians here, we do have property rights.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 12:14 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Tyranny of the majority is when the government takes stuff from individuals, not when it protects individuals from each other.
As for land, we have already discussed that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 12:27 AM |
|
|
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
- Sir Winston Churchill
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 12:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Tyranny of the majority is when the government takes stuff from individuals, not when it protects individuals from each other.
As for land, we have already discussed that.
Say I am born today. In the middle of an Earth that is someone else's property. EVERYWHERE (not just one guy mind you, but in total). What the hell do I do? Buy it off from them?
Who sets the price? Them? How did THEY get it? How much did they pay? Why do I have to pay THEM and SUFFER depending on how much THEY want, when they did NOT go through it? (or they bought it off someone else who sold it cheaper).
But if you go to the root, you'll see that they either probably bought it off from God himself, or they just claimed it. WHERE'S THE CAPITALISM HERE? Where's the fairness?
Why should I respect their properties when they put a price tag on it and their ancestors claimed it? Why can't I claim it? Where's my turn? Huh?
@Wolfman: Glad to know if I vote you as president, you'll allow me to own a nuke. I'll put it in my garage
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 12:40 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
You aren't born out of nowhere. You have parents, or guardians, or something like that. You're supposed to live with them.
And it's unfair not to let people claim property.
Wolfman:
How much of what you're saying applies to me?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 12:45 AM |
|
Edited by Wolfman at 00:47, 09 Mar 2009.
|
First of all, you ignored everything I've said and decided to put words in my mouth, awesome.
Secondly, what is wrong with you buying land from someone else? OH they get to set the price! How unfair! But you've forgotten...IT'S THEIRS! Why should anyone other than them determine the price? Welcome to common sense 101...
Mvas -
Honestly, it seems like you are being dragged around this conversation and are not allowed to make any points of your own. You are the one in my example that gets put on the defensive and maybe argues things he doesn't completely agree with just to offset him.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 01:44 AM |
|
|
So, any actual ideas on why socialism is so prevalent online?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 08:07 AM |
|
|
And what has the discussion about socialism and capitalism to do with the right to carry weapons??
And btw...if everyone only does what HE wants...only sees HIS rights...only takes care about HIS ideas...never takes a minute and thinks about how own ideas may effect others (in a bad way probably...), and questions every law which could curtail his free will, this society will for sure die pretty soon. A society / community will never work if it is filled with egoists only....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 09:12 AM |
|
|
This is a typical example for the deliberate misunderstandings such a debate creates. Before you start talking about the merits of capitalism you have to consider the fact that the division of property has not been made with a view on "the market". The most important commodity - land (with everything on and in it) - has been switched back and forth, taken with violence or simply bought from the government (as in the US) for a couple of cents.
It's fairly obvious that NO system will work flawless, when a couple of people own most of the real worth, leaving the rest only their ability to work. (Which is what Death is trying to say.)
And that's (and has been) the whole problem, the ownership of the Earth: the land and what is in it. Even if capitalism WAS the best possible system,we'd still have the fundamental flaw that there has never been even half of an equal chance for everyone, undermining the complete system. And of course being best for those who DID own already. So that is one thing, and that thing has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism or whatever -ism you favor. It has something to do with the starting conditions.
And this is why ULTIMATELY the means of production - land, natural resources, plants, factories and so on - should not be PRIVATELY owned. Before you start arguing, think about the fact that capitalism is completely neutral about the question of private ownership. LEASE is a completely normal capitalist concept. You may see society as a body of share holders, with every single member of it owning a share. The actual corporation of the society's enterprises as such is therefore owned by the society. Single people may only LEASE use of societal property, getting a (generous) director's FEE (plus of course, a share of the net profit) out of their productivity, but not more.
As it is, too big a part of the actual profit of business operations is wandering in too few pockets which is ultimately bad for society as a whole, since it's of no use for anyone to own a private wealth in the billions of bucks. You could say that if the difference in owning a couple of millions and owning a couple of billions is really to be felt for the owner of that money it can only be disadvantageous for the rest of society (and before you start attacking that you may think a bit about it).
And that has nothing to do with socialism or with inhibiting the individual. It just has got something to do with the rules of play and how they should look to allow the best game possible, capitalism or not.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 09:40 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 09:41, 09 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
It's fairly obvious that NO system will work flawless, when a couple of people own most of the real worth, leaving the rest only their ability to work.
Quote:
And that's (and has been) the whole problem, the ownership of the Earth: the land and what is in it. Even if capitalism WAS the best possible system,we'd still have the fundamental flaw that there has never been even half of an equal chance for everyone
In the US, more than 80% of people buy a house. That's hardly a "couple of people". And if I'm not mistaken, 80+% is more than "half of an equal chance for everyone".
But then most of the people who post in the Other Side these days never let trivial things like facts get in the way. Facts can be such a bother sometimes.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 10:02 AM |
|
|
|
Well, taken into account that 46 million Americans have no health care and 36 million live in poverty...
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 10:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In the US, more than 80% of people buy a house. That's hardly a "couple of people". And if I'm not mistaken, 80+% is more than "half of an equal chance for everyone".
But isn't exactly this "fact" one of the reasons of the current financial crisis? As far as I know, people in the US are able to buy a house even though they do not have a single dollar in their pocket (may be a bit exaggerated...)? And later on, they are even allowed to take a loan from their bank when the value of their house has increased?
But when the value of their house decreases, their problems start to grow. And how big such a problem can grow is for all to see right now.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
| |
|
|
