Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Hmm... the poster before you argued that socialism was absolutely a bad idea. Do you seek to contest that or do you fall back on the fact that your opinions are simply just your opinions?

The reason for this is simply an attempt to stir up some debate. The only other alternative that I can see so far is to debate socialism with dexkaden where one of us takes a point of view that we don't actually stand for.

Well, what I meant was that the concept seemed good but trying to make it work when human nature is what it is would be preposterous.

The laws governing human nature are as immutable as the laws governing the physical world.

Take gravity, for instance. Let's say people don't like falling off of ladders (and it's not fun, I tell you) since they don't like what happens when they hit the ground. So a bunch of people get together and say, "hey, you know what, it isn't fair that when we fall, we get hurt. I think we ought to make a law that says that when someone falls off a ladder, gravity weakens and we all just kind of float down to the ground. Wouldn't that be nice?" "Oh, yes, yes, that would be so nice. Let's do it." And they vote it in and the whole world is in agreement that now that they've signed a law into being that gravity will weaken---and then someone falls off a ladder and gravity ignores the written law, does not weaken, and the person is hurt.

This scenario is ridiculous; no one in their right mind would think of doing such a thing (although they do mess around with mathematics: In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi. (House Bill no. 246, introduced by Rep. Taylor I. Record.) It died in the Senate.)

But throw emotion and man into the mix, and all of a sudden we think we just change human nature by writing it into law... I just don't get it.

Or the original poster could attempt to justify his claim...

Any system that ends up with 95% of wealth to 5% of the population is a failure to me.

How quaint.

Capitalism rewards hard work and perseverance. Adam Smith called it the invisible hand. Now it is called 'enlightened self-interest.' Those who work hard and more than what is accepted can gain wealth quickly. Case in point: Eugene Stoner and Mikhail Kalashnikov. Stoner created the M-16, the KAC SR 25, and Bushmaster Cannon; Kalashnikov created the AK-47 and 74, along with vibration resistant gauges. Both are veterans, mostly self-educated, but, they are known the world over for thier work and perseverance. Stone lived quite well off thanks to his works. Kalashnikov, stuck in the natural predecessor to socialism, recieved a salary and a now worthless pension.

Yeah, this system is unfair, unforgiving, and fundamentaly egalitarian. You only get out of it what you put into it. Better than the sh***y apartment and starvation K had to go through immediately after the fall.

I fail to understand why anyone, let alone an Aspie, is a socialist. Why should worthless idiots be rewarded?

If they reward hard work and talent, then why is Nikola Tesla not as revered as Thomas Edison?

One of the few books I ever read was on Eugene Stoner and the
M-16.

Ok, tell me how Paris Hilton has shown "hard work and perseverance"

I think its not matter of who is more revered. Edison was a better
bussiness man. Tesla was a better inventor. I fancy myself as an
inventor to and admire Tesla but I'm not likley to be rich and famous as Edison was either.

Speaking only for myself here as a Socialist, I believe that anyone who refuses to work should be left on the streets to rot.

And there are plenty of worthless idiots who are rewarded by Capitalism....Tom Cruise...Paris Hilton...Nicole Richie...the list goes on.

Basically, socialism is about envy. Tom Cruise is highly paid because for some reason people pay to see his movies and in return, he earns lots of money for studios. He is winning because of the system. If you don't like that he is being paid exhorbitant amounts of money, then so what---all you're saying is that you don't value him as much as other people do. (The irony is, of course, that it is people who makes tons of money--like Tom Cruise--who are actively working to create a socialist system to "redistribute" the wealth of other people, just not their own.)

Do I think it is "fair" that someone like Paris Hilton inherits money from her father's hard work? I don't worry about it. It isn't hurting me. In fact, there is a trickle down effect; the more money she has to spend (even if it is on "worthless" stuff), the more money is injected into the economy. Think about it--the more stuff she buys, the more stuff people make, which means the market (and job market) expands. That is how it works.

So some people rise to the top. Big deal.

I happen to think that the SOLE PURPOSE of government is protect my life, my liberty, and my property. As long as government stays in that role, men are equal. Government is not instituted among men to take winnings from the winner. If some private citizen wants to take HIS MONEY, or raise money from other private citizens, then all the better. But someone deciding to take the government's monoply of force to coerce private citizens into behaving "morally" is wrong.

Are you saying that the government did not have a part in making you successful by protecting you life, liberty, and property?

No---what are you asking? Didn't I just answer that? I said it does play a role, a very important role in my (and everyone's) success, and that is protecting property. I really do not understand what you are trying to ask me.

Because Edison actively blocked alot of press period about Tesla. Hell, Edison had active smear campaigns against him and Westinghouse as the country electrified and tried to decide between AC vs. DC systems. Edison went as far as to pay one competitor, Hiram Maxim, off to go to Europe and never work in electricity again.

And Cyanide, Paris Hilton is famous because she is a trust fund baby and stupid. Those two attributes together make good press, as it appeals to the most base insticts of humanity. Yellow Journalism, if you notice is not the exception, it's the norm for all press outlets.

Interesting. That is a stand that some socialists do not take, often times motivated by the view that to do something like this would be slavery, not that man in a state of nature was not similarly enslaved to his wants but whatever.
Are they objectively worthless? The reason I ask is that I think that Dart's complaint on socialism is that he cannot see how such a system will not just be bent into a shape more like that of the USSR where people who got wealth and power only did so through coercion, in which case there is no exchange between the people and the rulers under this system. This distinguishes them from the people in a capitalist society that you mention quite greatly, the reason being that nobody forces you to pay attention to any of those 3 people or the entire list if you don't want to, and the money given to them depends more on the perception from businesses that people want to see them than any other factor. Shows that are unliked fall off of the air, movies that are unliked leave the theatre, yet those who put their faith in Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton or Nicole Richie didn't have these problems. The idiots rewarded by capitalism were funded by idiots who thought that Hilton and Cruise and others were entertaining and made it worth their time/money to support them. This means that essentially speaking, individuals in our society gave these idiots the money in a free exchange based upon value.

Now, I won't take as hard of a moral stand as dexkaden on this matter, however, I will state that in absence of measures such as property rights, it is likely that incentive problems will arise, as most people want their personal efforts compensated with some form of gain, and fields offering higher gain usually do so in order to attract better talent. In the absence of such incentives I don't think that individuals will strive as far to get to the top as it either requires for them to get private wealth.