|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 09, 2010 04:19 AM |
|
|
JJ:
But that "change" is an amendment. Namely, the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. 
Quote:
you need enforcers
Exactly. You need enforcers. Enforcers, are not at the head of anything. They do what they're told. They don't give orders - they take them.
Quote:
Well, what DID you say?
That workers and capitalists are the same, only replacing "capital" with "labour".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Garrulous
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 05:12 AM |
|
|
I am really thinking the lack of an agreed upon definition is really hurting any sort of discussion on Socialism. However, I don't feel like getting into that can of worms. The definitions of socialism are like snows, everyone has one. Or so it seems.
Rather I would bring up the safety net. Personally I have no issue with it. I see the "endowed with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." As more than enough justification for a safety net of some kind. Particularly when it comes to healthcare.
The problem I have is that the so called safety nets that seem to get put into place could probably have been better designed by a three year old. Or simply put there is little point in safety nets that are faulty. . . I mean would you leap into a moth eaten fireman's trampoline/safety net thing? I guess if you were really desperate, but I am sure you would rather have one in good condition!
Now it is easy enough to criticize but another to suggest a solution. My biggest issues are with the monetary safety nets. If everyone had the money to afford good solid health-care the need for a health-care safety net would be relatively low. But the way the unemployment/welfare saftey net works tends to utter disgust me.
What would I do that is different? Well getting UE checks is almost worthless in my eyes. While the unemployed look for employment(and in a very bad downturn this can be a long time) they are often 'wasting' away. Skills tend to get rusty. Even when the person does some work to maintain it they may have issues due to advances, etc[such as if they were a student who majored in 3d rendering using 3ds Max, they could easily fall a version behind(which can hurt when hunting for a job in that field)... though I suppose piracy would be an option]
It would be so much better if the government could use those taxes to create temp jobs utilizing the unemployed's skill set or if that wasn't possible to at least create jobs(even if they serve little purpose) so that it isn't just a 'handout'. But of course that would require hard work and effort to do/maintain and would likely cost more[which the tax payers likely wouldn't like]. Much easier/simplier to send checks. But if for some reason I had trouble finding a job, rather than getting a check I would much rather be given a job even if it was 'busy work'.
Which brings me to the next part some of those unemployed 'waste' away. I know some who have gotten pretty depressed. A check does nothing for them, but even busy work helps(so friends/family will sometimes come up with 'jobs' that need done just so they can 'pay' said unemployed fella. . . and that actually does help they seem alive then).
But maybe that is just me, I would much rather put taxes into a program that got those people working, even if it was busy work, than a program that just sends checks. Both programs are likely to be labeled socialistic, but one imo is far better than the other(in theory, in practice it may not be able to be pulled off efficiently).
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 09:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
JJ:
But that "change" is an amendment. Namely, the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution.
I knew that, when I agreed. There are "amendments" that indeed change the constitution, but as the example shows, in fact it's not an amendment, but a "correction".
Anyway - both is possible. The mai9n point was, that a contitution is a living and developing thing - the idea to view everytjhing from the perspective of people long dead is absurd.
Quote:
Quote:
you need enforcers
Exactly. You need enforcers. Enforcers, are not at the head of anything. They do what they're told. They don't give orders - they take them.
But here you are dead wrong, because that won't work. Because we are talking about REAL power. The social agreement is bound to fail without a "guaranteeing power", because if there is no such thing, cheating or betraying pays best, for those who do it first. So you need enforcers with real power, reducing the problem to somehow making sure that the real power, the government, is keeping on track. That's why in earlier times government was bolstered by "the gods" or even personal godliness to give them real authority. Of course, giving them absolute power, is losing already at start - it couldn't get worse anyway, but that's going too far.
So it amounts to finding the right equilibrium between the execurive board of society and the rest in terms of power.
However, that's POLITICS. We are basically talking about ECONOMICS, though.
Quote:
Quote:
Well, what DID you say?
That workers and capitalists are the same, only replacing "capital" with "labour".
That's a pretty bad joke, if you ask me.
@ Garrulous
Neither programm is socialist, even though I agree with you about what is better.
However, you must not assume that the government is in any way caring for those who are deep down or that there can be anything socialist in our current societies. Everything is simply designed to fuel the capitalist machine and the capitalists because those are the main players, and the rest is just unimportant. The national differences are just nuances, when looking at the big picture, however for the individuals actually concerned it makes a big difference. Our actual governments are referees only between the players, where the main body of the population is just one among other economic interest groups.
Socialist, now, means that the position of that one player - bulk of population would be strengthened at the expense of the big economic interest groups: capitalists, rich, corps. And not the one small part is getting strengthened at the expense of another, somewhat better off part, which just isn't happening.
Handing out welfare may be social, but it isn't socialist.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 01:54 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 13:54, 09 Jul 2010.
|
Quote:
And I see no moral justification for socialism either.
Of course you don't, because as we all know people are kind-hearted human beings and in a pure, free-market system they wouldn't ever dream of forming cartels and exploiting the labor-force to the point that they would make just enough to sustain themselves and buy their products. OH GEE LOL I SUMMED UP CAPITALISM! Well, almost; I left out the most important part of exploiting other countries.
Don't get me wrong folks, I'm not advocating communism; the world would be a rather boring place if everyone had the same, nor would it be practical. But Capitalism is even worse, based on the simple fact it is deceitful in the way it promises wealth but in all truth only serves to increase the gap between a rich minority and a poor majority. Definately an amazing humane system to recommend alright.
Now I don't have so much a problem with -that- as much as I have a problem with certain 'people' (Hello Mvass!) who keep on boasting about how "fair" and "perfect" it is.... Which is simply both disgusting and stupid. And in my opinion (though correct me if I'm wrong) based on the arrogant idea that some day they themselves will be rich and it wouldn't look too good if they wouldn't be fully supporting an exploitative system that helped them achieve their materialistic "status".
But, that said, I must ask the most important question obviously arising in this topic...
Why are people responding to Elodin?... Just, why? I.. I'm just baffled by it.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 02:38 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 14:43, 09 Jul 2010.
|
Quote:
as we all know people are kind-hearted human beings and in a pure, free-market system they wouldn't ever dream of forming cartels and exploiting the labor-force to the point that they would make just enough to sustain themselves and buy their products.
I agree.
However, as we all also know, in a system where everyone is guaranteed to be economically equal to everyone else, human beings, kind as they are, would all work as hard as they can and wouldn't at all try to leech the system, get demotivated and provide less effort, knowing that everything will be provided by the state. The state would therefore be completely able to fulfill its promises and it wouldn't even think of resorting to enforcing measures, while reveling in corruption and inefficiency, effectively turning the entire country into one giant, not too successful, corporation led by one single board and CEO, able to set the prices, wages, freedoms and basically anything without any competition.
Mind you, you're talking about radical capitalism, I'm talking about radical socialism. Just to even things out. Most capitalists consider me a socialist and vice versa so please don't think I'm taking sides.
But yes, people who boast about the fairness, liberty and perfection of capitalism (or any other system of government that ever existed) do tend to have ethical issues which you summed up quite nicely. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 02:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
as we all know people are kind-hearted human beings and in a pure, free-market system they wouldn't ever dream of forming cartels and exploiting the labor-force to the point that they would make just enough to sustain themselves and buy their products.
I agree.
However, as we all also know, in a system where everyone is guaranteed to be economically equal to everyone else, human beings, kind as they are, would all work as hard as they can and wouldn't at all try to leech the system, get demotivated and provide less effort, knowing that everything will be provided by the state. The state would therefore be completely able to fulfill its promises and it wouldn't even think of resorting to enforcing measures, while reveling in corruption and inefficiency, effectively turning the entire country into one giant, not too successful, corporation led by one single board and CEO, able to set the prices, wages, freedoms and basically anything without any competition.
Mind you, you're talking about radical capitalism, I'm talking about radical socialism. Just to even things out. Most capitalists consider me a socialist and vice versa so please don't think I'm taking sides.
Shut up, you commie!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 02:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now I don't have so much a problem with -that- as much as I have a problem with certain 'people' (Hello Mvass!) who keep on boasting about how "fair" and "perfect" it is.... Which is simply both disgusting and stupid. And in my opinion (though correct me if I'm wrong) based on the arrogant idea that some day they themselves will be rich and it wouldn't look too good if they wouldn't be fully supporting an exploitative system that helped them achieve their materialistic "status".
I think, your opinion is wrong; they are just fooled by the system - you said yourself, the systemn is deceitful. And the lackey governments who bow before the almighty god of capitalism and money support the deception.
As I said: they see the symptoms - the middle class is ruthlessly exploited by taxes and forced insurances that all go the way everything goes - most of it lands in the pockets of the rich and powerful -, while THEY think it's the curse of socialism. 
The irony is breathtaking.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 03:09 PM |
|
|
Hm.
This discussion about the capitalist mind is sortof intriguing.
Though I'd say that both of you are equally right, since Moon described the thought process of an ambitious higher class mind, while JJ expressed how the middle class thinks.
Still, it's a generalization, but an interesting one nonetheless.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 03:58 PM |
|
|
Also note how I subtly called Mvass inhuman there, huh? See what I did there? Hur hur.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 04:27 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:06, 09 Jul 2010.
|
@JJ
Quote:
The mai9n point was, that a contitution is a living and developing thing - the idea to view everytjhing from the perspective of people long dead is absurd.
That is absurd. The Constitution is a fixed set of sentences. The sentences have a fixed meaning. The meaning of any part of the Constitution only changes if it is amended. If the Constitution is not amended it will have the same meaning a trillion years from now. Sentences can't just morph. They have to be altered for their meaning to change.
To say tha that what the Constitution means does not matter and that it can be "interpreted" to mean what the founders did not write is just ludicrous.
Quote:
Handing out welfare may be social, but it isn't socialist.
Lol! It is redistribution of wealth and theft from those who worked for it. And the lackey governments who bow before the almighty Socialist State god and the Party leaders support the robbery.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 06:18 PM |
|
|
the thing is with saying the constitution has a fixed meaning is rather like saying a poem has a fixed meaning, or a book, or a film. I mean, I sure lots of people read different meanings into the film Citizen Kane.
The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, as you have people like Sarah palin and bill "o Rly" talk about how the US was clearly founded on Judeo-christian beliefs, even when the second amendment has "seperation of church and state" in it.
It can happen with everything, we all impose our attitudes, backgrounds and views onto things. Ignore and deny this all you want, it does exist, and distribution of wealth can, will, and has been interpreted to be just as constitutional and unconstitutional.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 06:56 PM |
|
|
bixie:
Quote:
the thing is with saying the constitution has a fixed meaning is rather like saying a poem has a fixed meaning, or a book, or a film.
But they do have fixed meanings - when they have any at all.
JJ:
Quote:
The social agreement is bound to fail without a "guaranteeing power", because if there is no such thing, cheating or betraying pays best, for those who do it first. So you need enforcers with real power, reducing the problem to somehow making sure that the real power, the government, is keeping on track.
Well, yes, but these enforcers aren't acting of their own accord. (Or, if they are, they are dictators.) They are following the orders of the voters. The government isn't the head of society but its fist.
Moonlith:
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 07:16 PM |
|
|
Personally, I have no problem with Welfare as long as it's legitimate. There are some people that scam the system and need to be cut off (I know of some, like most of the Somalians I've met, there are normal, hard working Black people that do not leech from society then there are the majority of Somalians I have met that are welfare lifers and make tons of kids just to get more money, free homes and live like kings retirees that saved all of their lives. I do know of some people who were caught cheating Welfare though and they were duly punished but it does not seem to happen very often) but the majority do actually need it for short bursts of time between jobs. (Like my cousin who suddenly found out she is going to give birth in a month and has to use welfare and tax credits to survive until she gets a job because her family already lost its life savings recently. Her Boyfriend is in college doing an intense course to become a doctor, 3 years to go). Basically, if we just audited people on welfare more often, we'd be able to clean up all of the fraud and put a lot more money into removing the national debt, after that's erased, tax cut time. Tax cuts IMHO are a reward for fiscal responsibility, it is irresponsible to cut taxes without reducing costs and paying off debts first. Tax hikes should not be necessary except in extreme emergencies , if money cannot be spared from elsewhere.
I'm all for a social safety net, it's not stealing if it's actually put to use as it's supposed to be. Most people tend to agree that we need to keep the standard of living high for people that earn it (at least TRY to contribute to society). If somebody doesn't like it they can move to a country without welfare or healthcare.
Though I don't know why so many people are opposed to paying taxes as a violation of life, liberty and property but support removing the life, liberty and property of people they aren't even at war with (either citizens of that very same country, or allied nations). The Democrats of course, are happy to keep violating the constitution in any way possible, like the Republicans, Democrats, Republicans, etc before them and continue ignoring the protections everybody is supposed to have. (Not to mention, violating international laws as well as their own. Isn't torture, unjustified relocation and detention, and even murder immoral?) Of course, most people don't want to admit that their own countries (mine included!) have done some very serious misdeeds in the past. That's not very Patriotic.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 07:18 PM |
|
|
Interpretation is inevitable, especially since the founders intentionally made much of the Constitution vague, because they (somewhat rightfully) feared a rigid code more than a vague one. It was designed to be an evolving document, though amendments are a far safer way of doing that, rather than through sophisticated judicial bull****ing. Amendments are safer because making an amendment is difficult, so only highly popular and necessary changes are made.
For those that so easily glance over the dangers of BS'ing because it happens to be convenient on certain occasions, understand that such BS'ing is also responsible for things like the Patriot Act, which was instituted during a fleeting period of fear and paranoia, and now it's likely here to stay.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 07:33 PM |
|
|
I wonder if it was ok for hardcore capitalists like mvass, that the US (besides many other countries aswell) spent millions of dollars for the victims of the tsunami in 2004.
As far as I know, those dollars were taken from the taxes the US citizens have paid before.
So they "stole" it from you to help the poor, not even the poor in your own country..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 07:36 PM |
|
|
Of course I thought that was grossly immoral. Foreign aid is a terrible idea 98% of the time.
But ultimately, those "millions of dollars" is barely pocket change. It was just a bunch of countries getting together and trying to look noble by throwing a pathetic sum of money at the problem, which they should have used on domestic functions.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 07:42 PM |
|
|
angelito:
Well, on one hand it was just theft. On the other hand, it's pennies compared to the much worse things the government spends on. Plus, there's also the Machiavellian argument for it that it makes the US look better.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 07:56 PM |
|
|
An example of potentially legitimate foreign aid would be giving Iraq money to help with the damages the US caused. But that's not really foreign aid; that's compensation. It also depends on why the damage was done. I wouldn't, for example, support giving compensation if the US blew up a Somalian ship that had been commandeered by pirates. The government would have to be the liable party for what was done.
Other than for compensation, I can't think of any scenario where foreign aid is ethical.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 08:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
bixie:
Quote:
the thing is with saying the constitution has a fixed meaning is rather like saying a poem has a fixed meaning, or a book, or a film.
But they do have fixed meanings - when they have any at all.
Not so. Moreover, the problem isn't what is said (in the constitution); the problem is what is NOT said. After all, the rather small constitution has to "fit" over the whole reality which is expanding constantly. Moreover, only the mathematic language is precise. A term like "the welfare of the US" has definigtely NO fixed meaning (answering Elodin's absurd post as well).
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
The social agreement is bound to fail without a "guaranteeing power", because if there is no such thing, cheating or betraying pays best, for those who do it first. So you need enforcers with real power, reducing the problem to somehow making sure that the real power, the government, is keeping on track.
Well, yes, but these enforcers aren't acting of their own accord. (Or, if they are, they are dictators.) They are following the orders of the voters. The government isn't the head of society but its fist.
"Well, yes", sounds good! "But" doesn't. I didn't know that the voters tell the elected what to do. So while the government controls the fists alright, it's the head as well, and fairly obviously.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 08:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I didn't know that the voters tell the elected what to do
That's the whole point of democracy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
