NationStates Jolt Archive

For all of you who oppress Human and Civil Rights, please vote for the newest UN resolution. This will allow you even further control over your people and will perpetuate the expansion and overall power of your military forces. Thank you.

Signed,
William, Overlord of The Nemesis :twisted:

How about no.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

*is interested in this proposal being marketed to 'totalitarian socialist rulers'*

Evil people get sh*t done. None of that beating-around-the-bush-because-it-aint-right pa-tooey. :D

Who says that totaliatarianism is indeed inherantly evil? I am not evil. My people are all equal, crime is unheard of, and all citizens are required to spend two years in the military, hence, they understand the need for stability and unity among all peoples. Military expansion is unneccesary if you follow my model. Furthermore, you should generally clarify which resolution you mean exactly, and make sure that you are not referring to a proposal which is to become a resolution if it garners neccesary support. Simply saying the latest proposal is insufficient as new proposal and resolutions occur all the time.

Yours,
Maestro Proteus
Progenitor and Caretaker of the Commonwealth of the Pure Existence

More to the point, and as a means of expanding upon my vague and Christmas-induced thoughts above, who says that socialism is inherently totalitarian?
While many states have followed what might be termed a "neo-Stalinist" model of "state socialism" or "socialism in one country", it should probably be pointed out that this is a form of government designed to be subverted by a skilled dictator. To quote Paul Kennedy, these regimes
[Replace] the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with the Dictatorship of the professional dictator.
Clearly not a step on the road to Communism - at least, not the way that Marx would have it.

I have heard it argued by many socialists that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the eventual "withering away of the state", the final steps toward Communism, are in fact examples of the best that democracy has to offer - since in a stateless society, all decisions must be taken by all participants and not by a representative democracy.
While this may not be a wholly accurate summation, and instead be clouded with political bias, it serves as "food for thought", I think.

Dude, that topic is THE most redundant phrase I have ever heard...er...seen.

Not "redundant", Ithuania - an oxymoron definitely.

You couldn't be more wrong.

A dictatorship is bad no matter what the economics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Not necesarily. A dictatorship can be an excellent form of government, assuming that the dictator in question has the interests of his country at heart, not his own interests.

The problem with a dictatorship is that while things can be wonderful if you have a good dictator, eventually he'll grow old and die, resign, or whatever else, and the likelyhood of having two selfless, good men/women as dictators in a row is extremely slim. Unfortunately, it takes a great deal of moral strength and personal integrity to resist the temptation that that amount of power presents.

Uh, no.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

What's the difference between a dictator and a king (or queen)?

Mainly the absence of a long pedigree, I think.

Collaboration: Of course, that depends on the monarchy in question. Some ruled/rule with complete power, others are relegated to being mere showpieces.


Letila: Uh oh?

Uh, no.


Huzzah, eloquent and to the point, with an excellent supporting argument full of well-researched facts. :roll:

all citizens are required to spend two years in the military, hence, they understand the need for stability and unity among all peoples.

With the what now?

"If God made man, they say,
Sam Colt made him equal."

Seriously, though, how is that logical cause and effect? Unity and stability (and mindless dronery) among the military, yes. Among all people, I'm rather less sure. After all, I have a feeling the military might sometimes be responsible for destabilising whole regions... but you know, I could be wrong.

Huzzah, eloquent and to the point, with an excellent supporting argument full of well-researched facts.

Not every post needs to be groundbreaking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

You couldn't be more wrong.
As I've explained earlier on in this thread, proper socialism (i.e. that which follows the ideas laid down by Marx and Engels) is not a totalitarian system in the slightest. Socialism has had a bad rap since approximately Lenin's "Red Terror" and as a result, everybody thinks of the ridiculously insular and paranoid regimes of the old Warsaw Pact.
I've explained this viewpoint at length both in this thread and elsewhere. The least you could do is to present arguments against it if you want to disagree.

Not every post needs to be groundbreaking.

Uh, no.

See? It's just lame. If you're going to disagree with someone, at least put your reasoning up. Otherwise you're an opinionless sheep. Dictatorships can be good for nations, and many people would the safety and stability of a dictatorship over the instability of endless successionistic war.

At least try to consider the views of others before simply reflexively telling them that they're wrong.

The reason that dictatorships are bad is because states are inherently evil. An all-powerful state is extremely evil. I wouldn't be much of an anarchist if I wasn't opposed to dictatorship.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

The reason that dictatorships are bad is because states are inherently evil. An all-powerful state is extremely evil. I wouldn't be much of an anarchist if I wasn't opposed to dictatorship.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

I do not agree with you here, dictatorships are not inherently evil. It is only the most severe cases that you have seen and were made to think that they are all bad. As was mentioned earlier here it is meant to be an effective form of government, a way to make all people equal something that democracy does not strive for. Plus if you are truly an anarchist you would reject all forms of government rule would you not?

I do not agree with you here, dictatorships are not inherently evil. It is only the most severe cases that you have seen and were made to think that they are all bad. As was mentioned earlier here it is meant to be an effective form of government, a way to make all people equal something that democracy does not strive for. Plus if you are truly an anarchist you would reject all forms of government rule would you not?


I do reject all governments. How does dictatorship strive for equality when there is a powerful upper class that rules the lowr class?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

There, sadly enough, is no such thing as equal. Not as long as there is hate on the earth will man ever be equal with one another for some reason or another.

But, there is abuse, and abuse of power. When it comes from someone who should know better - the leader of a country - then that is when the evil word starts flying around.

For all of you who oppress Human and Civil Rights, please vote for the newest UN resolution. This will allow you even further control over your people and will perpetuate the expansion and overall power of your military forces. Thank you.

Signed,
William, Overlord of The Nemesis :twisted:

My nation is practicaly communist, and we don't opress anyone, so no.

Communism is inherently oppressive--its very goal is to oppress the competent and able for the sake of the incompetent and unable. That's called slavery, and it's bad, mmkay?

Communism is inherently oppressive--its very goal is to oppress the competent and able for the sake of the incompetent and unable. That's called slavery, and it's bad, mmkay?

Communism grants power to the people. Tahwy is a living example. Well, it is not perfect, but what is?

Capitalism, for example, doesn't promote necesarily democracy. It can exist very well in a dictatorships and opressive consumerist states. Communism on the other hand promotes democracy, which means "government of the people", or basically what communism promotes.

Exactly--it's democratic. Democracy is mob rule. In your communist utopia, the 75% of lazy, incompetent morons can vote to usurp the wealth created by (and therefore rightfully the exclusive property of) the 25% of hard-working, able bright people and it's perfectly acceptable.

Capitalism is the ONLY moral system because it is the only system that completely respects individual rights. Capitalism is the only system in which society is not allowed to take what is yours unless you have committed a crime against someone else. It is the only system in which you are allowed to just generally do what you please as long as you do not defraud or cause physical harm to the person or property of another. It is the only system that is correct.

Who are you calling totalitarian?!! :lol:

Nomadic Peoples of Anthonycha Emperor Elect
Chang Buck Yunn

Exactly--it's democratic. Democracy is mob rule. In your communist utopia, the 75% of lazy, incompetent morons can vote to usurp the wealth created by (and therefore rightfully the exclusive property of) the 25% of hard-working, able bright people and it's perfectly acceptable.

Capitalism is the ONLY moral system because it is the only system that completely respects individual rights. Capitalism is the only system in which society is not allowed to take what is yours unless you have committed a crime against someone else. It is the only system in which you are allowed to just generally do what you please as long as you do not defraud or cause physical harm to the person or property of another. It is the only system that is correct.

A country should not be based on Morals, but on Ethics. The idea of the "75%" of moron lazy people is extremely clasist and untrue. If the people are educated into the ethics of works and society, then I believe not a 75% but a less then 1% would be with that kind of description.

That's irrelevant. Nothing justifies taking from one what is his and giving it to another without his consent.

For all of you who oppress Human and Civil Rights, please vote for the newest UN resolution. This will allow you even further control over your people and will perpetuate the expansion and overall power of your military forces. Thank you.

Signed,
William, Overlord of The Nemesis :twisted:

But if you oppress maniacs like The Nemesis,join 1989 Anti Communist Alliance!

Thank you

in the name of the Victims of communism

Why should the small upper class live in obscene wealth while the large lower class works constantly to stay alive?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Woo Hoo!

So many improperly managed dictatorships with greedy, ineffective leadership. A proper autocracy should strive for unity in its people. Within the walls of my nation, there is no such class rivalry as there are no classes to begin with. Everyone is 100% equal in the eyes of the government. Even I, outside of managing the nation, lead a simple life, free of want or envy. I am simply happy to see us working together for a greater existence under the guidance of the government.

Yours,
Maestro Proteus
Progenitor and Caretaker of the Commonwealth of the Pure Existence

For all of you who oppress Human and Civil Rights, please vote for the newest UN resolution. This will allow you even further control over your people and will perpetuate the expansion and overall power of your military forces. Thank you.

Signed,
William, Overlord of The Nemesis :twisted:

But if you oppress maniacs like The Nemesis,join 1989 Anti Communist Alliance!

Thank you

in the name of the Victims of communism

Lol, the ideas of communism here is just... Wrong. Excuse me, but our communism is just great and excellent for all the people in my nation. I believe no-one could shatter our communist regim.

The Council Of They Who Rule The World In Majesty is forced to disagree with the wording of this post.The council is a dictatorship, we are not evil.Civil rights get in the way of the good of the state. Free enterprise gets in the way of major economic developement of the state sponsored companies.The libertarian center people get nothing done.They tiptoe around the important issues that goverments like the Council of MJ12 can sort out quickly. The 'universal suffrage', heck, 'suffrage' gets in the way of government. The peoploe tend to be lazy and poorly educated and so choose ineffective leaders who are good public speakers, but with totalitarian control a government can do great things.

Communism is inherently oppressive--its very goal is to oppress the competent and able for the sake of the incompetent and unable. That's called slavery, and it's bad, mmkay?
"Oppressive" is a lovely little word to bandy about, isn't it? An oppressive regime would most certainly be a nasty place to live in - which is why I don't think you'll see too many people who'd want to live in countries like the old USSR or most of Eastern Europe.
However, to say that this perversion of Communist ideology that was able to be seen in these countries is "the oppressive truth about Communism" or anything of the sort is a long bow to draw.
There's every difference between working for the good of a crazed dictatorial state (USSR/Soviet Bloc) and working for the good of humanity (a hypothetical Communist state, hypothetical because it hasn't been tried yet).

The entire purpose of a political ideology is to present something which, if the world functioned in a slightly different way, would work ideally. I can't speak for Letila, but I would assume that he would agree that his anarchist ideals require a slight adjustment on the part of human nature. The same is true of Communism.

Now, you've been very laudatory of Capitalism as an economic system. I can understand where you're coming from with that line, but can you honestly say that the neo-liberal capitalist policies of states like Mozambique and many other places in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Central America are "moral" or even "good"? Why is it "moral" for millions of people to struggle to earn $US1 every day while the people in power in these countries make substantially more than that and jet-set around the world?
That sounds like an "evil and oppressive" regime to me, somehow.

Communism is inherently oppressive--its very goal is to oppress the competent and able for the sake of the incompetent and unable. That's called slavery, and it's bad, mmkay?
which is why I don't think you'll see too many people who'd want to live in countries like the old USSR or most of Eastern Europe.
That's true...but we're talking about Communist countries, and those have nothing to do with Communism.

Mozambique and many other places in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Central America are "moral" or even "good"? Why is it "moral" for millions of people to struggle to earn $US1 every day while the people in power in these countries make substantially more than that and jet-set around the world?

If they obtained their wealth through legitimate means (i.e. not by the threat or use of fraud or physical force), there's nothing wrong with it. If they obtained their wealth through illegitimate means and nothing is being done about it, then those countries are not capitalist.

If they obtained their wealth through legitimate means (i.e. not by the threat or use of fraud or physical force), there's nothing wrong with it. If they obtained their wealth through illegitimate means and nothing is being done about it, then those countries are not capitalist.

Who decides what's legitimate? The powerful upper class. How is exploiting the poor any more legitimate than fraud?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Ithuania, it's easy to talk about obtaining wealth through legitimate and illegitimate means. We live (well, I live and I assume you do) in countries where law-breakers have very little influence over government policy and the "good guys" seem to win.
However, if the very purpose of Capitalism is to make money - and it is - then there will always be those who will make their money by illegitimate means if they think they can get away with it. There's an old saying that often came in handy back in my school debating days that "It's only illegal if you get caught". If the measure of your position in society is how much money you make, you can't honestly say that you won't try anything to make more money.

If you were a subsistence farmer in Mozambique or anywhere else in the world, I can guarantee you that if you saw one of the "fat cats" who ran your country driving around in a fancy car, you'd be furious. You wouldn't sit there and think "oh well, he's made his money legitimately, so I can't complain". No, you'd want to do something about it. In a country where you can't do anything about it through earning more money (because there simply is no work to do), you would want to change the system.

The only time an ideology such as Capitalism becomes moral is when its practitioners can afford it to be moral. It's easy for the rich to say "we live in a moral system" when it's a morality which keeps them on top.

That was a flawless post, Edonia.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Thankyou, Letila, I try.

You don't understand a thing, do you?

Capitalism is not moral because of its end result. That is irrelevant. Capitalism is moral because its philosophical foundations are moral--namely, the idea that each individual is free to do as it pleases so long as he does not initiate the use of fraud or physical force against another individual's person or property without his consent.

[snip]
There's every difference between working for the good of a crazed dictatorial state (USSR/Soviet Bloc) and working for the good of humanity (a hypothetical Communist state, hypothetical because it hasn't been tried yet).

Ah yes. That old lament. Murray Rothbard took care of it by pointing out that it actually has been tried--the only way it can be tried.

The entire purpose of a political ideology is to present something which, if the world functioned in a slightly different way, would work ideally. I can't speak for Letila, but I would assume that he would agree that his anarchist ideals require a slight adjustment on the part of human nature. The same is true of Communism.

Which is the point from above wrt communism.

Anarchy, OTOH, has nothing to be adjusted.

(No, there's nothing about anarchy that requires "perfect people" if that's where you want to go.)

Now, you've been very laudatory of Capitalism as an economic system. I can understand where you're coming from with that line, but can you honestly say that the neo-liberal capitalist policies of states like Mozambique and many other places in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Central America are "moral" or even "good"?

Because most of them are actually interventionist states, or in a state of chaos, not capitalism.

Why is it "moral" for millions of people to struggle to earn $US1 every day while the people in power in these countries make substantially more than that and jet-set around the world?
That sounds like an "evil and oppressive" regime to me, somehow.

Yeah, caused by a government. Get rid of government, and that problem goes away substantially.

A dictatorship is bad no matter what the economics.

:idea: A dictatorship is not necessarily bad. Though I have to say most of the time they treat their people horribly. But even according to the ancient greeks (PLATO) where we say our modern democracies stem from the best ruler is the philosopher-king...in other words a benevolent dictator. :D

Communism v. Socialism v. Capitalism v. Fascism
Dictatorships. v. Democracies

Though these debates are important for the communication of ideas, they tend to really lead nowhere. Different people have different beliefs and favor different things. Different people favor different economic systems and ways of ruling. What is the "best" economic system or form of government changes, along with what is dominant. Its all relevant to the times and the people.

Even my political and economic views shift from time to time.

This resolution proposal put forth by the creator of this forum will fail anyway. There are enough socialist nations to block it, as well as free-minded, accepting, and tolerant capitalist countries that would do the same.

I will not support this proposal, and if, and that is a huge if, it reaches the floor I will vote against it.

Nomadic Peoples of Anthonycha Emperor Elect
Chang Buck Yunn

Capitalism is the ONLY moral system because it is the only system that completely respects individual rights.

What about the individual right to democratically control the workplace? Or the individual right to not have to submit yourself to a tin-pot dictator for the majority of your waking hours? Oh, that's right, you don't believe in those rights. Well we don't believe in the rights that capitalists claim for themselves either.
AFoFS UN Council

Capitalism is the ONLY moral system because it is the only system that completely respects individual rights.

What about the individual right to democratically control the workplace? Or the individual right to not have to submit yourself to a tin-pot dictator for the majority of your waking hours?

Those are not rights because they do not logically follow from any moral value standard.

Capitalism is the ONLY moral system because it is the only system that completely respects individual rights.

What about the individual right to democratically control the workplace? Or the individual right to not have to submit yourself to a tin-pot dictator for the majority of your waking hours?

Those are not rights because they do not logically follow from any moral value standard.

Sure they do. They flow from our sense of right and wrong. Though we could probably get them as Kantian Categorical Imperatives. Or would you prefer a Utilitarian argument? How about one based on a certain understanding Christian morality?

The fact that our sense of right and wrong differs from your's is no great surprise. But your idea of right includes the 'right' to be an absolute dictator so long as you gain control of the country buy purchasing it. Sorry, we'll stick to our "immoral" ideas of freedom and equality.
AFoFS UN Council

Capitalism is the ONLY moral system because it is the only system that completely respects individual rights.

What about the individual right to democratically control the workplace? Or the individual right to not have to submit yourself to a tin-pot dictator for the majority of your waking hours?

Those are not rights because they do not logically follow from any moral value standard.

Sure they do. They flow from our sense of right and wrong. Though we could probably get them as Kantian Categorical Imperatives. Or would you prefer a Utilitarian argument? How about one based on a certain understanding Christian morality?

How about contractarianism?

A dictatorship is not necessarily bad. Though I have to say most of the time they treat their people horribly. But even according to the ancient greeks (PLATO) where we say our modern democracies stem from the best ruler is the philosopher-king...in other words a benevolent dictator.

Benevolent can't be in. The same sentence as dictator. Government is evil in any form.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

You don't understand a thing, do you?

Capitalism is not moral because of its end result. That is irrelevant. Capitalism is moral because its philosophical foundations are moral--namely, the idea that each individual is free to do as it pleases so long as he does not initiate the use of fraud or physical force against another individual's person or property without his consent.
Which is a highly commendable theory but not one which tends to work out well in practice.
As I said earlier, it's only illegal when you get caught. Why is music piracy so common in the modern world? Because the RIAA and friends cannot conceivable hope to catch every single small-time operator making CDs for himself. They can haul the big fish in, true, but the little fish will escape. Why do people break the speed limit? Because the police aren't watching them with radar guns at the time. No police means that you can get away with speeding.

I say again, capitalism's foundations are only moral because they put the capitalists where they want to be - on top. If I were Bill Gates or a man in his position, I'd be insane to argue in favour of any other economic ideal than capitalism - it got me to where I am, so it becomes moral.
If I were a subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa or an unemployed tribesman in Papua New Guinea, I'd be insane not to argue for a different ideal. Just as capitalism keeps Gates, Buffet et al on top, it keeps the "great unwashed" on the bottom. Why? Because there is no obligation on anyone's part to help these people out of their rut. Is it interventionism? Yes, it probably is. However, if you were struggling to make a dollar a day, I doubt you'd be sitting in your mud-brick hut at night thinking "Wow. Capitalism is so wonderfully moral."

BAAWA, good to see you again, by the way. I'd thought you surely deleted for inactivity. As for your arguments, I do intend to deal with them at some point, but not right away since I've only just woken up and yours is something more of a multi-front attack.
Surprisingly, though, I agree with much of what I took in your thoughts. In the real world, socialism/communism may well be an impossible ideal - however, the same can broadly be said of any political or economic system being fully implemented. As this is an ideological debate, however, I prefer to deal in ideals. That said, valid point.

I also do understand your point about the need for the removal of government. I have not yet arrived at that point in my own politico-philosophical development, being currently encamped somewhere in the middle of the Left wing, but I can certainly see the logic in the arguments advanced by anarchists such as your good self and Letila. You'll certainly have no risk of being hit over the head with the old "anarchy requires perfect people" argument from me.

And look what Gates has given us: A poor computer system designed to put more money in his exploding pocket.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Communism is inherently oppressive--its very goal is to oppress the competent and able for the sake of the incompetent and unable. That's called slavery, and it's bad, mmkay?
"Oppressive" is a lovely little word to bandy about, isn't it? An oppressive regime would most certainly be a nasty place to live in - which is why I don't think you'll see too many people who'd want to live in countries like the old USSR or most of Eastern Europe.
However, to say that this perversion of Communist ideology that was able to be seen in these countries is "the oppressive truth about Communism" or anything of the sort is a long bow to draw.
There's every difference between working for the good of a crazed dictatorial state (USSR/Soviet Bloc) and working for the good of humanity (a hypothetical Communist state, hypothetical because it hasn't been tried yet).

The entire purpose of a political ideology is to present something which, if the world functioned in a slightly different way, would work ideally. I can't speak for Letila, but I would assume that he would agree that his anarchist ideals require a slight adjustment on the part of human nature. The same is true of Communism.

Now, you've been very laudatory of Capitalism as an economic system. I can understand where you're coming from with that line, but can you honestly say that the neo-liberal capitalist policies of states like Mozambique and many other places in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Central America are "moral" or even "good"? Why is it "moral" for millions of people to struggle to earn $US1 every day while the people in power in these countries make substantially more than that and jet-set around the world?
That sounds like an "evil and oppressive" regime to me, somehow.

Sub-Saharan African countries are far from capitalist, I don't think any of them even ranked as yellow in the 2000 glossary of economic freedom. And I don't think ANY economic freedom guide ranked any of them in the top 50% most capitalist nations and I defy you to find otherwise. They're closer to noncapitalist than capitalist.

Capitalism, more than anything else, means:
- Property Rights
- Rule of Law
- Free Markets

In this sense, establishing capitalism directly is impossible from anarchy, dictatorship, communism, etc. To create capitalism, there is necessarily a brief period of heavyhanded government like in China right now, but once the economic system is sufficiently liberalized and property rights have sufficient protection, the rule of law practically establishes itself.

Capitalism [even countries such as Sweden run on free-market principles, mind you, most of the production in Sweden is privately-controlled] is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition of liberty.

If you want to dispute me on that, find a single country with a planned-economy (meaning that most of the means of production are not privately controlled) that is relatively free and then we'll talk.

Real quick, is it me, or have we, including a mod, hijacked this thread completely from its proper topic, with apparent mod consent as he/she/it is taking place in the debate?


Those are not rights because they do not logically follow from any moral value standard.

Whose moral values? If there is no god then all things are moral. That is what I hold to be true and my morals. However, obviosuly that is not what you hold. I seriously doubt that Letila or Enodia hold to such a moral standard either. I don't think your argument is particularly valid as to me NO rights ((even the ones that I recognize to exist)) stem from any moral value. Therefore I will not attempt to argue that capitalism is not moral because it is thereby neccissarily moral. However, I can not say that Stalinism is immoral either because all things are moral.

So I have a question for both sides, why is your form of government the best logically? What makes it better than any other form of government? Do any of you have any logical basis for your views? So far TGM is doing the best of convincing me with logic.

Oh, and on a note, from my own beleifs to me the only moral govrenment is no government, as any other government would have the inherent postulate that it's the only moral form of government which to me is a paradox becaues everything is equally moral.


Edit: Mispelt your name there Letila... Very sorry...

*Just popping in, can't stay long. Will debate soon.*

Caras, the debate came up organically as a result of the statement that "socialist rulers" were also "evil" and "totalitarian". I outlined to the thread's creator that this was not the case, but Ithuania decided to take me to task in what has turned into a very interesting debate of political philosophies.
It's a hijacked thread inasmuch as the proposal it was about is no longer being debated, but this sort of thing does happen on the UN forum as differences in proposal positions tend to denote differences in ideological beliefs.

It seems that the capitalists' arguments always contain the phrase "property rights" at least 50 times. That is certainly the focus of their ideology. But what is the point of property rights? Why do you need $10,000,000 when the "middle" class survives easily with much less?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

It seems that the capitalists' arguments always contain the phrase "property rights" at least 50 times. That is certainly the focus of their ideology. But what is the point of property rights? Why do you need $10,000,000 when the "middle" class survives easily with much less?

Because it's THEIRS. Why is that so difficult to understand? Whether it's absolutely necessary or not is completely irrelevant. It's theirs.

Because it's THEIRS. Why is that so difficult to understand? Whether it's absolutely necessary or not is completely irrelevant. It's theirs.

But why is it theirs? Only because society says it's theirs? If you inherit something, what did you do to earn it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

You do not necessarily have to earn something for it to be yours. You only need obtain it with the voluntary consent of its previous legitimate owner.

So that justifies people having millions of dollars while other people starve on the streets? :roll:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

[quote]Because it's THEIRS. Why is that so difficult to understand? Whether it's absolutely necessary or not is completely irrelevant. It's theirs.

But why is it theirs? Only because society says it's theirs? If you inherit something, what did you do to earn it?


In capitalism, a man or woman who inherits money and is incompetent with the management of his or her inheritance, he or she would end up losing it. On the other hand, if the person manages his inheritance well, he'll prosper, and that's the beauty of capitalism-justice.
Capitalism, like every other social and economic system, has been screwed up and distorted. In America, for example, it needs improvement. It needs to be pure in order to work.

In response, predominantly, to TGM's points of a while ago. Some thoughts:

Sub-Saharan African countries are far from capitalist, I don't think any of them even ranked as yellow in the 2000 glossary of economic freedom.
(NB: The full text of this paragraph continues in much the same vein)
They may well not have much economic freedom, but I would contend that that is due - in no small amount - to the structural changes imposed upon them by multi-national capitalist groups such as the IMF and the World Bank.
These groups operate on the basis of "we have money which we'll give to you if you liberalise your economies". This sounds in the abstract like a wonderful thing to do, but the fact of the matter is that the average man-in-the-street (or "man-in-the-shanty-town" in many of these countries, and no I'm not being racist to say that) doesn't seem to like it. I wonder why that could possibly be. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the economic liberalisation results in massive job losses as the fledgling market is flooded with imports, would it?
To shift across the Atlantic for a minute, there was recently a popular uprising in one of the Latin American countries. Bolivia maybe? Whichever one it was, it featured the President flying off to Miami and issuing a press release as he left that his V-P was in charge. Almost everything I've read about this particular uprising made the point that the resentment against the President was due to his liberalisation of the economy - including privatising such things as the national water provider. Before anyone thinks to criticise my reading matter, no, it wasn't just the New Internationalist that said it. Even comparatively right-wing television media in this neck of the woods made that point. If the vast majority of the population doesn't like something, it says to me that there's something wrong with it.

Capitalism, more than anything else, means:
- Property Rights
This is where we begin to have our disagreements. As I'm sure you can appreciate, there is only a finite amount of property in the world. Now, if you were to ask Bill Gates or an English noble with millions of castles whether they were in favour of property rights - they'd agree. Why wouldn't they? They've got the money, the land, the nice car, the big fancy house and so on. From their perspective, the system is moral.
Challenge for you. Go to the remote highland villages of Papua New Guinea. Mix with some people who haven't got running water, haven't got electric lights and have very little hope of ever getting them. Ask the men of these villages why they're going to head to Port Moresby - they want the money. Follow them to Port Moresby and watch them fail dismally to get work, either because there isn't any in the first place or because they aren't educated enough, coming as they do from a rural background. Ask them if they think that's a moral system.
Always remember, there are more people in the developing world than the developed world.
- Rule of Law
Couldn't agree with you more. The assurance that people will not be jailed or even executed for arbitrary reasons is a very important one in society. I disagree with the implication that it's only a capitalist ideal, however. In a truly socialist society (i.e. not one which has existed at any time in the world as yet and quite possibly one that will never exist), it would be a guarantee afforded to the citizens as a matter of course.
- Free Markets
And therein lies the problem. Take Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory of the self-balancing economy left to its own devices and combine it with David Ricardo (was that the one?)'s work on Comparative Advantage and what do you get? A raving disaster area. It simply ceases to be viable for the developing world to produce anything, since the developed nations can do so much more efficiently. Without the economic impetus of trade, where do the developing nations end up? Where they started - still developing.

In terms of the challenge to "find a planned economy with a reasonable level of freedom", I've said previously that as this is a debate about ideologies I prefer to deal in ideals rather than the real world. I'll be the first to admit (as I have earlier on, on several occasions) that socialism as implemented isn't all that crash-hot.

It seems that the capitalists' arguments always contain the phrase "property rights" at least 50 times. That is certainly the focus of their ideology. But what is the point of property rights? Why do you need $10,000,000 when the "middle" class survives easily with much less?

Because there's no reason not to. Because limiting how much a person can make infringes upon property rights.

A dictatorship is bad no matter what the economics.

One word for you, Letila,....Cincinnaticus look it up. :)

So that justifies people having millions of dollars while other people starve on the streets? :roll:

This statement is oh so typical of the failings of liberalism/socialism with the concept of "created wealth" and evidence of its adherence to the willfully ignorant concept of capital being a "zero sum" game. The fact that the amount of capital, in a free society, is not finite is seemingly incomprehensable to them. They actually believe that in order for those with out to elevate themselves economicaly they must take wealth from those that have it.

Such beliefs can only be held by the economic cowardly or the ignorant who posess neither the personal initiative to venture into economic risk(i.e. business) nor a healthy respect for self determination ( i.e. Freedom)

They get their wealth by using workers who work simply to stay alive while they get richer and richer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Because it's THEIRS. Why is that so difficult to understand? Whether it's absolutely necessary or not is completely irrelevant. It's theirs.

But why is it theirs?

They earned it.

Only because society says it's theirs? If you inherit something, what did you do to earn it?

You earned it by making a difference to someone.

You earned it by making a difference to someone.

Or by being born into the right family.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

You don't understand a thing, do you?

Capitalism is not moral because of its end result. That is irrelevant. Capitalism is moral because its philosophical foundations are moral--namely, the idea that each individual is free to do as it pleases so long as he does not initiate the use of fraud or physical force against another individual's person or property without his consent.
Which is a highly commendable theory but not one which tends to work out well in practice.
As I said earlier, it's only illegal when you get caught. Why is music piracy so common in the modern world? Because the RIAA and friends cannot conceivable hope to catch every single small-time operator making CDs for himself. They can haul the big fish in, true, but the little fish will escape. Why do people break the speed limit? Because the police aren't watching them with radar guns at the time. No police means that you can get away with speeding.

There are certain things for which there are laws against which should not be.

I say again, capitalism's foundations are only moral because they put the capitalists where they want to be - on top.

They are moral because of the agreements made to respect private property. David Gauthier and Jan Narveson explain it quite well in their essays/books on contractarianism (essentially first put forth by Hobbes).

f I were Bill Gates or a man in his position, I'd be insane to argue in favour of any other economic ideal than capitalism - it got me to where I am, so it becomes moral.
If I were a subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa or an unemployed tribesman in Papua New Guinea, I'd be insane not to argue for a different ideal. Just as capitalism keeps Gates, Buffet et al on top, it keeps the "great unwashed" on the bottom. Why? Because there is no obligation on anyone's part to help these people out of their rut.

Yet capitalism has lifted the standard of living wherever it has been given any semblance of a try.

Is it interventionism? Yes, it probably is. However, if you were struggling to make a dollar a day, I doubt you'd be sitting in your mud-brick hut at night thinking "Wow. Capitalism is so wonderfully moral."

Would you rather the person starve?

BAAWA, good to see you again, by the way. I'd thought you surely deleted for inactivity.

Just because I'm not *posting* doesn't mean I'm not *active*, right?

As for your arguments, I do intend to deal with them at some point, but not right away since I've only just woken up and yours is something more of a multi-front attack.

Given that I am an anarchocapitalist....yeah.

Surprisingly, though, I agree with much of what I took in your thoughts. In the real world, socialism/communism may well be an impossible ideal - however, the same can broadly be said of any political or economic system being fully implemented. As this is an ideological debate, however, I prefer to deal in ideals. That said, valid point.

Alright.

I also do understand your point about the need for the removal of government. I have not yet arrived at that point in my own politico-philosophical development, being currently encamped somewhere in the middle of the Left wing, but I can certainly see the logic in the arguments advanced by anarchists such as your good self and Letila. You'll certainly have no risk of being hit over the head with the old "anarchy requires perfect people" argument from me.

Glad to hear it.

You earned it by making a difference to someone.

Or by being born into the right family.

Which makes no difference.

Which makes no difference.

It makes a big difference. It means that your success in life is determined largely by luck.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

They get their wealth by using workers who work simply to stay alive while they get richer and richer.

Reality has quite amply shown you to be wrong.

Which makes no difference.

It makes a big difference. It means that your success in life is determined largely by luck.

Non sequitur. The logical operater used was "or".

That's not to say that luck isn't involved sometimes in life. But luck is really just code for "not knowing all the variables and being in the right place at the right time".

On the whole, effort has far more import than luck.

(NB: The full text of this paragraph continues in much the same vein)
They may well not have much economic freedom, but I would contend that that is due - in no small amount - to the structural changes imposed upon them by multi-national capitalist groups such as the IMF and the World Bank.
These groups operate on the basis of "we have money which we'll give to you if you liberalise your economies". This sounds in the abstract like a wonderful thing to do, but the fact of the matter is that the average man-in-the-street (or "man-in-the-shanty-town" in many of these countries, and no I'm not being racist to say that) doesn't seem to like it. I wonder why that could possibly be. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the economic liberalisation results in massive job losses as the fledgling market is flooded with imports, would it?
To shift across the Atlantic for a minute, there was recently a popular uprising in one of the Latin American countries. Bolivia maybe? Whichever one it was, it featured the President flying off to Miami and issuing a press release as he left that his V-P was in charge. Almost everything I've read about this particular uprising made the point that the resentment against the President was due to his liberalisation of the economy - including privatising such things as the national water provider. Before anyone thinks to criticise my reading matter, no, it wasn't just the New Internationalist that said it. Even comparatively right-wing television media in this neck of the woods made that point. If the vast majority of the population doesn't like something, it says to me that there's something wrong with it.

I'm opposed to the IMF anyways. Liberalizing your economy is definitely beneficial, but it cannot be done rapidly. It must be done over time. You cannot take a corrupt dictatorship and transform it to a viable democracy overnight. Likewise, you cannot take a stagnant welfare-state and transform it to a healthy capitalist one overnight.

I've got three hundred years of history to prove that long-term tariffs harm the economy. However, I am not so naive as to suggest that developing countries are better off tariff-free. A short-term low-level tariff is beneficial for developing economies, though it had best remove it after a couple years if it doesn't want to economically collapse. China raised its tariffs in the early 1990s when economic growth was still fast but lowered its tariffs as soon as the 1997 crisis occured and is set to slash all of its tariffs on other East Asian nations in 2010 provided other nations do the same. The biggest problem with tariffs is countertariffs. Other nations will put tariffs on you and eventually you're left with autarky, which is a sure-fire recipe for global economic collapse. In the grand scheme of things, market liberalization, when done over sufficient time, has a 95% chance of improving a developing economy drastically.

This is where we begin to have our disagreements. As I'm sure you can appreciate, there is only a finite amount of property in the world. Now, if you were to ask Bill Gates or an English noble with millions of castles whether they were in favour of property rights - they'd agree. Why wouldn't they? They've got the money, the land, the nice car, the big fancy house and so on. From their perspective, the system is moral.

There is NOT a finite amount of property. How do you explain growth? If wealth were zero-sum, then logically growth would be impossible, would it not? Yet the world's real (that is, inflation-adjusted) GDP in 2000 is almost fifty times more than it was in 1800. In other words, there is fifty times more property around today then there was in 1800.

Challenge for you. Go to the remote highland villages of Papua New Guinea. Mix with some people who haven't got running water, haven't got electric lights and have very little hope of ever getting them. Ask the men of these villages why they're going to head to Port Moresby - they want the money. Follow them to Port Moresby and watch them fail dismally to get work, either because there isn't any in the first place or because they aren't educated enough, coming as they do from a rural background. Ask them if they think that's a moral system.

These people are largely poor because Paupa New Guinea doesn't have adequate protection of property rights. China amended its constitution in the eighties to include the line, "private enterprise is an integral part of the market-socialist system" and began recognizing private property and protecting it to a degree unseen elsewhere. The result? People have begun getting jobs, and getting education. The per capita income in the city of Shanghai alone has more than doubled since 1990.

Always remember, there are more people in the developing world than the developed world.

The developing world is largely poor because of their own defunct systems. Certainly the IMF plays a part in it, and I personally believe that we should defund the IMF and instead let actual private organizations offer third world countries loans.


Couldn't agree with you more. The assurance that people will not be jailed or even executed for arbitrary reasons is a very important one in society. I disagree with the implication that it's only a capitalist ideal, however. In a truly socialist society (i.e. not one which has existed at any time in the world as yet and quite possibly one that will never exist), it would be a guarantee afforded to the citizens as a matter of course.

Here we go with conjecture again. I can't dispute your claim, though capitalism has tended to yield laws while planned economies tend to have arbitrary political systems. I haven't studied law in depth, but property is the foundation of common law, and common law is the foundation of civil law, and the rule of law in general.

And therein lies the problem. Take Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory of the self-balancing economy left to its own devices and combine it with David Ricardo (was that the one?)'s work on Comparative Advantage and what do you get? A raving disaster area. It simply ceases to be viable for the developing world to produce anything, since the developed nations can do so much more efficiently. Without the economic impetus of trade, where do the developing nations end up? Where they started - still developing.

You misunderstand comparative advantage theory. First of all, comparative advantage is all relative. It's not how efficiently you can produce a good, it's how efficiently you can produce it relative to other goods. It is mathematically impossible for a country not to have a comparative advantage in some good. If a developed nation can produce either 1,000 cars or 1,000 cans of coffee and a developing one can produce only either 4 cars or 6 cans of coffee, the developing nation still has a comparative advantage in coffee, as the cost of coffee is, in terms of cars, 1 car for a developed nation and 2/3 of a car for a developing.

The only way a country wouldn't have a comparative advantage is if it produces equally efficiently (i.e. one produces 100 cars or 100 coffee and the other produces 20 cars or 20 coffee), but then neither side would have an advantage. I don't think you can beat it using traditional math.

In terms of the challenge to "find a planned economy with a reasonable level of freedom", I've said previously that as this is a debate about ideologies I prefer to deal in ideals rather than the real world. I'll be the first to admit (as I have earlier on, on several occasions) that socialism as implemented isn't all that crash-hot.

I agree :lol:.

On the whole, effort has far more import than luck.

How if you can get extremely rich just by luck alone?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

You earned it by making a difference to someone.

Or by being born into the right family.

Which is almost always the same thing.

You make a difference to your parents, don't you? What makes you think rich preppies are any different?

You earned it by making a difference to someone.

Or by being born into the right family.

Which is almost always the same thing.

You make a difference to your parents, don't you? What makes you think rich preppies are any different?

You earned it by making a difference to someone.

Or by being born into the right family.

Which is almost always the same thing.

You make a difference to your parents, don't you? What makes you think rich preppies are any different?

On the whole, effort has far more import than luck.

How if you can get extremely rich just by luck alone?

C'mon, I'm sure even Paris Hilton had to possess some personal merit... she had to not piss her parents sufficiently off that they disowned her :lol:.

But on a more serious note, far more people earn their fortunes through their own work rather than by inheritance. I don't think a single American billionaire inherited more than $100 million.

If you want a mathematical proof, the average American college graduate makes $65,000 a year (not right out of college, obviously, but after a while) and works for 40 years.

$65,000 x 40 = $2,600,000

I'd consider two and a half million dollars quite a fortune, and all you have to do to earn it is graduate from an average college and live and average life. And there's over $70 billion worth of financial aid available, 95% of which is need-based.

Or if you graduate from an Ivy League school:

$80,000 x 40 = $3,200,000

So if you work hard enough in high school and get into Harvard, you can probably make over $3 million in your lifetime without inheriting a cent. And if your parents are on welfare, you'll get a free ride through college. I know people who have.

On the whole, effort has far more import than luck.

How if you can get extremely rich just by luck alone?

That normally only happens if you win the lottery. Otherwise, it takes mostly effort, drive, and determination (not to mention a good product).

A dictatorship is bad no matter what the economics.

One word for you, Letila,....Cincinnaticus look it up. :)

Maybe I've got my history wrong, but Cincinnatus was a farmer who became a general and saved Rome from defeat during the Samnite Wars. They offered to make him king, but he refused and instead returned to private life, thus making him the idol of George Washington.

What does this have to do with dictatorships and economics?

Though we disagree on many things, TGM and I can agree that dictatorships are bad.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Leitla, I just wanted to throw this in:

"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in the world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want and if they can't find them, make them."
--George Bernard Shaw

I'm just surprised that so many ppl took me so seriously as to reply and even argue against my views of the Utopian, and yes that is Utopian, Communist Society.

Signed,
William, Kind of Almost Important Overlord of the Nemesis