NationStates Jolt Archive

Me and a freind were debating the moral virtues of Capitalism and Socialism, and I suggested the following hypothetical situation. What would you do?

There is an unknown evil threatening the world. Not too long ago, the world was in a similar prediciment. To defeat it (and it can be defeated by the right amount of military power) a wealthy man donated a large amount of money to fight it, on the basis that it would be paid back on demand.. The evil was held back, but now a second wave is threatening. The wealthy man, dispite the threat, is demanding what remains of his money back. The world has no other hope to defeat evil except the money provided by the wealthy man.

This is a hypothetical situation, so were not allowing such obvious solutions as the government simply spending into debt or coercing workers to build the technology nessecary to defend Earth. The government has to choose between giving the money back or defending the world.

I expecting most people to support defending the world, so I'm much more interested in the responses of people holding other veiws.

I'd say if it's an unknown evil, wait until it's known before committing capital. From an investment point of view, there's no point in delaying indefinitely the return on an investment as part of a contingency whose purpose you neither understand, nor have defined.

Or, to put it another way, fighting evil while it remains unknown, is a waste of money.

The wealthy man is also evil, so it's a choice between two evils. Interesting, I'd say the problem is capitalism, of course.

I'd say if it's an unknown evil, wait until it's known before committing capital. From an investment point of view, there's no point in delaying indefinitely the return on an investment as part of a contingency whose purpose you neither understand, nor have defined.

Or, to put it another way, fighting evil while it remains unknown, is a waste of money.

I called it unknown for the same reason economists talk about widgets-- so that you won't waste time debating how the evil is defeated. Call the evil terrorists or Communists or Nazis if it helps.

The wealthy man is also evil, so it's a choice between two evils. Interesting, I'd say the problem is capitalism, of course.

You critiscize me for being autoritarian. But you are so sure of yourself, and your stupid ineffecient idea of a government, that you are what you hate. At least I admit I'm a left-wing fascist.

I think that if it's needed to save the world, they should keep the money. I couldn't imagine a man greedy enough to sell away the entire human population because he wants his money back.

Ah, OK, in that case it's easy. You can do a sort of cost-benefit analysis, model several likely scenarios, etc. The defeat of communism in the USSR was far more about subtle market manipulation and cultural subversion than just an arms race, although that was one element of it.

It also kind of depends what sort of ideological considerations you include. For example, from a financial perspective, the war on terror is terribly counter-productive. The cold rational thing to do would be to accept the slow (and over time trivial) trickle of casualties you accumulate as the price of whatever imperial project you are running, especially if it is supremely successful. But then that may not be politically acceptable. So it is complicated somewhat by issues of political expediency.

I guess what I'm saying is, sometimes fighting an enemy is going to be a greater resource drain than letting them take shots at you every now and then, but it may not be ideologically acceptable to be completely rational about it.

You critiscize me for being autoritarian. But you are so sure of yourself, and your stupid ineffecient idea of a government, that you are what you hate. At least I admit I'm a left-wing fascist.

I don't have an authoritarian bone in my body. I don't care about efficiency, I care about freedom, equality, and community. Also, you can't be a left wing fascist. You would be a dystopian socialist (as opposed to a utopian socialist), if anything.

Ah, OK, in that case it's easy. You can do a sort of cost-benefit analysis, model several likely scenarios, etc. The defeat of communism in the USSR was far more about subtle market manipulation and cultural subversion than just an arms race, although that was one element of it.

It also kind of depends what sort of ideological considerations you include. For example, from a financial perspective, the war on terror is terribly counter-productive. The cold rational thing to do would be to accept the slow (and over time trivial) trickle of casualties you accumulate as the price of whatever imperial project you are running, especially if it is supremely successful. But then that may not be politically acceptable. So it is complicated somewhat by issues of political expediency.

I guess what I'm saying is, sometimes fighting an enemy is going to be a greater resource drain than letting them take shots at you every now and then, but it may not be ideologically acceptable to be completely rational about it.

I said I didn't want you to talk in terms of how the evil will be defeated. Just think of it in these terms: If the evil is not challenged, humanity will certianly not be destroyed. The only way it can be challeged is with the rich man's money.

And, Letila, we all know what you think.

I don't have an authoritarian bone in my body. I don't care about efficiency, I care about freedom, equality, and community. Also, you can't be a left wing fascist. You would be a dystopian socialist (as opposed to a utopian socialist), if anything.
The word is authoritarianism, or more specifically, authoritarian socialism. 'dytopian socialism' is politically loaded, even though I consider it the second worst political structure.

The word is authoritarianism, or more specifically, authoritarian socialism. 'dytopian socialism' is politically loaded, even though I consider it the second worst political structure.
Whats the worst?

Whats the worst?

Non-socialist authoritiarianism.

Conservatism, run by RUSH LIMBAUGH.

The best is liberial dictatorship.

Me and a freind were debating the moral virtues of Capitalism and Socialism, and I suggested the following hypothetical situation. What would you do?

There is an unknown evil threatening the world. Not too long ago, the world was in a similar prediciment. To defeat it (and it can be defeated by the right amount of military power) a wealthy man donated a large amount of money to fight it, on the basis that it would be paid back on demand.. The evil was held back, but now a second wave is threatening. The wealthy man, dispite the threat, is demanding what remains of his money back. The world has no other hope to defeat evil except the money provided by the wealthy man.

This is a hypothetical situation, so were not allowing such obvious solutions as the government simply spending into debt or coercing workers to build the technology nessecary to defend Earth. The government has to choose between giving the money back or defending the world.

I expecting most people to support defending the world, so I'm much more interested in the responses of people holding other veiws.


Actually that is the flaw of socialism - they think that money solves problems. That is what makes this hypothesis flawed.

first you try to make peace and not start weapons race, as the cold war.
second if the war is the only way, you should explain the rich guy that money don't help him when the world destroyed.
then if he still want his money you need found other riches, or take emergancy taxes from all the citizens.
if he is the only one who can donate, just tell him to forgot from his money, at least until you win the war.

glad to help.

Me and a freind were debating the moral virtues of Capitalism and Socialism, and I suggested the following hypothetical situation. What would you do?

There is an unknown evil threatening the world. Not too long ago, the world was in a similar prediciment. To defeat it (and it can be defeated by the right amount of military power) a wealthy man donated a large amount of money to fight it, on the basis that it would be paid back on demand.. The evil was held back, but now a second wave is threatening. The wealthy man, dispite the threat, is demanding what remains of his money back. The world has no other hope to defeat evil except the money provided by the wealthy man.

This is a hypothetical situation, so were not allowing such obvious solutions as the government simply spending into debt or coercing workers to build the technology nessecary to defend Earth. The government has to choose between giving the money back or defending the world.

I expecting most people to support defending the world, so I'm much more interested in the responses of people holding other veiws.
i would say the government should save the world, but then should admit that it was flat out stealing when it refused to return the man's money. the government should give him double what he was owed, and a public apology, for the wrong that they committed.

The best is liberial dictatorship.

I'n with this guy. :)

The best is liberial dictatorship.

Sometimes referred to as "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Funny thing about that ... it was suppose to gradually fade away, but never did, just got more and more dictatorial and oppressive until it effectively collapsed under its own contradictions ( with a little help from the West ).