NationStates Jolt Archive

Excuse me for the brief Interruption into the meaningless but I actually wanted to hold a decent discussion on a topic. Sorry if I step on any toes or happen to spew false statements in the paragraphs that follow, I try very hard to remember my points and alas sometimes a few of them will slip from my mind, or become slightly altered so please feel free to point out my erroneous information. And that would be factual stuff, not you think greens a cool color, that’s so not true. Please, have good judgment, even though that may be asking a bit from some individuals.

Now the real point in me bring up this topic per say, Is that I was curious on several aspects that were being discussed in one of the recent Communism vs. Capitalism debates I had several questions that I wanted answered. Rather than side track the whole pointlessness of the debate I decided to start My own link. Hope none of you mind.

Now then to begin;

I have several questions that I will Number and then answer myself, if you come up with different answers than please feel free to share, or if you lack the brain power to come up with intelligent answers of your own, please feel free to attack my answers, it only seems fair so you know.

1) Is it Morally acceptable to force someone to accept your philosophy? Ie: is it morally correct to enforce your sole beliefs on to each and every person, no matter what?

2) Can you truly ever get rid of private property, and if you did would that be the correct thing to have done?

3) Is selfishness such a bad thing?

4) Is the philosophy behind Communism truly and utterly sound? Does it work in other situations?

Okay that’s all I have some of them may seem bland but, eh, life’s life. I will then proceed to answer my own questions, if you have decided I am already a total idiot that doesn’t know what he/she/it is talking about then please feel free to skip down and right your own skewed version of my questions without bothering to get the real concept behind the words. So therefore and what not my answers in descending order.



1# To be quite honest I suspect that everyone will agree that it isn’t acceptable to jam your opinions down someone else’s throat. Correct? Correct. How ever here is where we get into one of what I see as one of the key problems with communism. What do you do with the people who don’t want to be part of the communist state? You can’t very well be practicing free and open ideas if you chain someone to your country, but if you let them leave who do you lose? In general the people who are most anticommunist are people such as Industrialists and Inventors. What happens to your country when this type of person leaves? What are you left with? You have all the bits and pieces of the puzzle except the men of ability.

Now then you can always argue that in a perfect society there wouldn’t be anybody who would want to leave. However since we live in a mortal world and nothing is ever perfect when can probably scratch the import of that argument. For seriousness you have to accept that we live in a flawed reality, and that as such any society will have a kink in it somewhere. So what do you do with these people who pop up and want no part of it? Well the safest thing to say would be to let them go right? But if you let them go and they go to the country next door, which happens to be a capitalistic country, what happens to that country. It prospers do to the fact that capitalism trumps communism due to eats dog eat dog philosophy.

Okay then so what. Well when they prospered, and start to get wealthier, what happens to your poor people in your country? They go and look over the border and say, wow, that man has a TV, I don’t, maybe if I go over there I can get a TV. That’s a crude example, but this is a crude answer so work with me. Now then do you let that man go over? If you say yes, I ask you what happens to your nation as more and more men flee to the so called “illusion” of capitalism? If you say no, I ask what happened to freedom, and aren’t you now enforcing your beliefs on someone else? To the first question I say your nation collapses, and to the second I say that yes, you are jamming your philosophy down someone else throat, are you not?

2# I am a firm believer in private property and this is why, because to get rid of it is to touch a lot of icky subjects. To begin with, I ask you to play with this scenario. Everyone gets paid the same amount of money, 50 dollars each. Now then I can sing, I am a very good singer, In fact I’m so good I elect to have a concert. Now there are 50 people in the community and me. They all come and I charge a dollar. That means that I make 50 dollars and they each lose a dollar. Now I have 100 dollars and they all have 49 dollars. Under a communistic system, would I not have to give my earned money back to the people who paid me? That’s preposterous, but it is what would happen, isn’t it? So that we are all equal? My question is would I sing for very much longer, If I don’t gain anything from it? Sure I would, to myself and maybe a few friends. But would I give soul crunching concerts, no, because there would be no point.

Do you see the line we cross? Are your kids yours? Of course they are, and you can raise your kids. But if we lived in a truly communistic society, could such a thing as families be tolerated. For all seriousness, that is private ownership. If I save my wage to pass on to my kids, would you say ‘no that’s unacceptable you must share it with the man who spent it on alcohol.’ Under public ownership you would. You see when everything is everyone’s, there becomes no point in doing something when you can simply loot it from the people who do. For those of you who say there are no people like this I would point to the people who live on welfare, and whose parents have lived on welfare, and whose parents’ parents have lived on welfare. There are those kind of people, who will leech and give nothing back.

3# This was something I saw, the frequent calling of capitalists selfish and anti social minded. I ask in return is Selfishness such a bad thing? Now everyone at first glance says yes, selfishness is a bad thing. Well then I must say that everyone who now lives in a First World Country is selfish. After all you have a house, and have the liberty to type on the computer to respond to my post. Are you not aware, that at this moment 30,000 children are starving to death? That someone is being Raped? That there are millions dieing from curable diseases? That there are billions living under oppression? How dare you be so selfish as to live in a house, how dare you be so selfish as to succeed. How dare you be so selfish as to be happy while these people suffer. How dare you. Why aren’t you giving all you have to them? You say that you are. Impossible, you can always do more, you should be over there right now. If it was someone you cared for would you be happy if they wree there, would you be happy if they were suffering. Would you not be over there right at this moment helping.

If not you are surely flirting with selfishness.

Am I advocating selfishness to an extreme. Sure why not, because if more people were selfish we would live in a better world. Just kidding, but the point of this is that selfishness is not as absolutely horribly as people make it out to be. If you jump in the water to save your husband over a stranger, that’s being selfish. If you give a toy to a strangers child rather than your own that’s being unselfish. It is important not to draw conclusions that don’t exist.

4# Lastly my question on whether the system is good or not. We will venture to a school. Now then we all know that a C is average an A is passing and that an F is failing, correct? Well then here is the example of why I most disagree with this philosophy. Suppose you earn an A, Earn it. And suppose someone else Earns an F by his effort and you did your best, and he slack. Well as a fellow human being it is your duty to do your work so that you get a C which is average, and take on his work so that he gets a C, as well. Is that not what you ask people to do. If I am at a Job that earns me $100,000 because I worked and I tried, and some Joe-Bob makes $20,000 a year because he didn’t bother to graduate, is it fair to take $40,000, of MY hard earned dollars and give them to Joe-Bob, so that we’re even. I think not.

This is the problem, if we follow the whole ‘Each to his Ability, and each according to his Need.’ Then those of us with ability are chained to those without it. I ask how is there need greater than mine? How can you say I must do such a thing, Isn’t that forcing your principles down My throat?

Alas that is all I have the strength to say, I would take the time to praise two extraordinary minds that gave me these insights, I only wish I was better at conveying there ideas. The two works and there authors are, respectively, Atlas Shrugged, By an Ayn Rand, and, Anarchy, State and Utopia; By Robert Nozick.

To all of you who have gotten this far I thank kindly for your time, and hope that you’ll write something decent back. Please! No one liners, make a decent argument, not a line by line rebuttal. Thank you again, and I apologize for the numerous errors that may have occurred.

Excuse me for the brief Interruption into the meaningless but I actually wanted to hold a decent discussion on a topic.

You lost me there.

Excuse me for the brief Interruption into the meaningless but I actually wanted to hold a decent discussion on a topic.

You lost me there.
:D

Same here, actually...

1) Is it Morally acceptable to force someone to accept your philosophy? Ie: is it morally correct to enforce your sole beliefs on to each and every person, no matter what?

I'm more or less unsure about morality at this point, but I would say that forcing communism on people is pointless as the values of communism only matter if they are genuinely held and not simply foisted.

2) Can you truly ever get rid of private property, and if you did would that be the correct thing to have done?

Sure, getting rid of property is the easy part. Creating alternatives to property is the real dificulty.

3) Is selfishness such a bad thing?

When it results in unsustainable social systems and short-sighted actions, yes, it is probably best kept in moderation.

4) Is the philosophy behind Communism truly and utterly sound? Does it work in other situations?

Would I back it if I didn't think the philosophy behind it was sound?

Letila

I would ask if you even bothered to read my post.

:D

Same here, actually...

This person didn't lose me there because of the "decent discussion" part, but because he seems very confident in his own answers to his own questions, not to mention the lack of brevity in the post. A quoi ca sert de répondre, I ask myself. This "decent" "discussion" seems ironically to already have taken place in the monologue.

This person didn't lose me there because of the "decent discussion" part, but because he seems very confident in his own answers to his own questions, not to mention the lack of brevity in the post. A quoi ca sert de répondre, I ask myself.
He lost me mainly because I couldn't be arsed reading the rest of the waffle before he got to his main point.

I skimmed it and, while I am pretty sure that I agree with the main bullet points, he comes across as too wordy for my tastes.

I think I disagree with pretty much every point. I don't want to address it all though, I will just focus on the most important parts.

I am a firm believer in private property and this is why, because to get rid of it is to touch a lot of icky subjects.

Ah yes, the all too common "if I don't get paid I won't work much." Communism assumes that people will not only work well for merely monetary gain. If you can't wrap your head around that, if you refuse to believe it, if you look into history and only see cost/benefit then you simply cannot understand and debate communism. Just give up.

But if you are willing to give it a shot I will offer the following:

1) Capitalist free-market wage-incentives aren't as strong as you would imagine. Haven't you ever worked in an office where there were a number of lazy people all with the same opportunity to earn a raise but few actually worked for it?

2) People do things for non-monetary gain. They are called hobbies. Amateurs are people who do a thing for the sheer love of the thing, as opposed to professionals who do a thing for a living. If you are good at singing, and you love singing, won't you sing regardless of the poor monetary gain? Aren't there any struggling local bands where you live?

This was something I saw, the frequent calling of capitalists selfish and anti social minded. I ask in return is Selfishness such a bad thing?

The most you are demonstrating here is that the people who condemn selfishness are possibly hypocrites. However, you don't know that they are for certain and it doesn't take away anything from the point itself.

Of course selfishness is a bad thing. But the problem is that your "opponents" do not consider selfishness what you consider selfishness.

When you hear selfishness you hear "rational self-interest." When your "opponents" hear selfishness they hear "unfettered greed with no consideration of morality."

I have yet to hear an objectivist or classic liberal agrument for a totally subjective morality. They all impose rules of some sort. If you agree with Rand and Nozick then you must agree that there are simply some things that are not to be condoned even if they advance someones reasoned self-interest. The difference boils down to where you drawn the line. What should be condoned and what should be punished?

Take a look at the some of the Political Compass scores of the communists on this board. I think it's rare to find a communist that is both socially and economically authoritarian. They do not want to individual to totally succum to the State. They do want a community focused scheme of economic organisation because they generally believe that an individual scheme is a threat to human rights.

Welcome to the jungle, Nvoak; you're about to get a taste of what I have to put up with every day. I've been saying some of this for months now, and I'm glad to see some sensible people starting to show up.

¡Capitalista!

Welcome to the jungle, Nvoak; you're about to get a taste of what I have to put up with every day. I've been saying some of this for months now, and I'm glad to see some sensible people starting to show up.

¡Capitalista!
Go away you. Noone likes a Capitalist Mod.

Oh and in regards to the thread itself. Not only has your topic been done the point of redundency, it is written in such away to stifle actual debate and discussion.

Go away you. Noone likes a Capitalist Mod.
That's fine, I'm not asking them to. If anything, I'd be suspicious if you did.

Oh and in regards to the thread itself. Not only has your topic been done the point of redundency, it is written in such away to stifle actual debate and discussion.

Just like Melkor's! This is getting spooky. I call puppet!

it is written in such away to stifle actual debate and discussion.
You mean he's right and you can't think of any cheap rebuttal in the form of a one-liner.

You mean he's right and you can't think of any cheap rebuttal in the form of a one-liner.

I submit "You're a poopyhead" for review and approval.

I submit "You're a poopyhead" for review and approval.
I submit a counter-proposal of "Your mom" for the consideration of the assembled.

I submit "You're a poopyhead" for review and approval.

It probably wasn't a good idea to post that in a thread that a mod is actively posting in.

I submit a counter-proposal of "Your mom" for the consideration of the assembled.

See above.

I submit a counter-proposal of "Your mom" for the consideration of the assembled.

Curses!

Looks like I will have to quit the field.

It probably wasn't a good idea to post that in a thread that a mod is actively posting in.

You forget that Melkor is one of those rare breed of mods with a sense of humour. Or at least the sense to recognise humour.

You forget that Melkor is one of those rare breed of mods with a sense of humour. Or at least the sense to recognise humour.
Unlike certain posters I will hesitate to name.
*coughFasscough*

Unlike certain posters I will hesitate to name.
*coughFasscough*

As usual, you make no sense, seeing as I was the one pointing out the humour to someone else here. But you don't let reality get in the way of your little posts, I've noticed.

You forget that Melkor is one of those rare breed of mods with a sense of humour. Or at least the sense to recognise humour.

Meh. I don't know Melkor that well. I just assume that all the mods are looking for [modolympics action +1]. How else would I have gotten through a year of NS without any disciplinary action?:D

"1) Is it Morally acceptable to force someone to accept your philosophy? Ie: is it morally correct to enforce your sole beliefs on to each and every person, no matter what?"


It depends upon who you ask. People all have different values of what is morale and what is not. There is no one answer because no person's set of morale value is superior to any other person's set of morale values.

You forget that Melkor is one of those rare breed of mods with a sense of humour. Or at least the sense to recognise humour.
Indeed; when I read this I have to admit I had something of a chuckle. That said, we should probably stop hijacking this here thread. Funny, yes; on topic, no.

Back on to topic, Capitalism kicks ass. Booyah free market baby!

You mean he's right and you can't think of any cheap rebuttal in the form of a one-liner.
I'm not you, Fiddles

As usual, you make no sense, seeing as I was the one pointing out the humour to someone else here. But you don't let reality get in the way of your little posts, I've noticed.
You should bore me, but I'm fascinated by how someone so obsessed with the lack of innovations available in others could be so repatitive in their own postings. Nevermind, though, I'm sure you provide someone with hours of droll amusement.
Also, that should be a comma instead of a period between "here" and "but."

Indeed; when I read this I have to admit I had something of a chuckle. That said, we should probably stop hijacking this here thread. Funny, yes; on topic, no.

Back on to topic, Capitalism kicks ass. Booyah free market baby!
In response: Booooooooo! Capitalists eat babies!

You should bore me, but I'm fascinated by how someone so obsessed with the lack of innovations available in others could be so repatitive in their own postings. Nevermind, though, I'm sure you provide someone with hours of droll amusement.
Also, that should be a comma instead of a period between "here" and "but."

I'll steal from Rotovia- this time: I'm not you. You're the failing wannabe clown, unfortunately. But, as Melkor has said, this thread gets to return to its subject.

Indeed; when I read this I have to admit I had something of a chuckle. That said, we should probably stop hijacking this here thread. Funny, yes; on topic, no.

Back on to topic, Capitalism kicks ass. Booyah free market baby!

Hmmm...I have an idea.

Let's privatize education. Completely. No vouchers.

Let's see what happens when half the population can't afford any education at all.

I'm not a big fan of communism, but I'm not a big fan of capitalism, either. I guess I'm just not a big fan of absolute, sweeping ideology in general.

Hmmm...I have an idea.

Let's privatize education. Completely. No vouchers.

Let's see what happens when half the population can't afford any education at all.

I'm not a big fan of communism, but I'm not a big fan of capitalism, either. I guess I'm just not a big fan of absolute, sweeping ideology in general.
I don't know, I'm not entirely thrilled with the public education system; I think it's results are glorified a lot because no one wants to admit we're basically just babysitting these kids so they're not out spraypainting giant cocks on the barn or setting fire to the neighbor's car. Having been through it fairly recently myself, I distinctly remember being taught the same thing several times, and multiple years were spent on concepts like long division, which isn't very difficult after a few hours of more or less forced concentration. I beleive the Eductation system is structured around the cultural expectancy we have for children to remain..... well, children until age 18.

I would, of course, have to look at numbers to back up a claim like this but I would venture to say the same result could be attained with a lot less funding by cutting out most of middle school and late elementary school completely. If I were in charge, public education would be done with your kid a lot sooner and he might actually end up having to be [i]productive earlier in life.

I don't know, I'm not entirely thrilled with the public education system; I think it's results are glorified a lot because no one wants to admit we're basically just babysitting these kids so they're not out spraypainting giant cocks on the barn or setting fire to the neighbor's car. Having been through it fairly recently myself, I distinctly remember being taught the same thing several times, and multiple years were spent on concepts like long division, which isn't very difficult after a few hours of more or less forced concentration. I beleive the Eductation system is structured around the cultural expectancy we have for children to remain..... well, children until age 18.

I would, of course, have to look at numbers to back up a claim like this but I would venture to say the same result could be attained with a lot less funding by cutting out most of middle school and late elementary school completely. If I were in charge, public education would be done with your kid a lot sooner and he might actually end up having to be [i]productive earlier in life.I think that also raise the question of the quality of education that is being provided. I distinctly remember being challenged everyday in high school to not just learn soemthing completely new but to truly understand the concepts we were taught.

The biggest concern though, remains. If we remove public education then millions of children could potentially end up illiterate and unable to advance through society on their own accord.

If anything, public education preserves capitalism and the ideal that a person should be equally capable of rising and falling based on their own merits alone and it on this poin that I differ from my fellow liberals.

Because I undoubtably believe in Liberal Capitalism, that is we are not all more with the same gifts (ie wealth, health, etc) but we are all born with the same right and desire to succeed. I believe the most important facit of a democractic economy should be ensuring our children can grow to their full potential by their own merit.

This means we should reward those that work hard at bettering themselves through education, employment and bussiness.

If we are ever to advance as a society we have to understand this basic concept. That we must give the next generation the very best opportunity... and to do that we must pay the best teachers, we must have the best schools with the latest knowledge, which should educate children on the skills to survive, the skills to work and the skill to learn.

If not, we risk stifling The American Dream (for lack of a better term).

1) I suggest the question makes no more sense than asking 'is there a car that goes faster?'.
I suspect that very many people would prefer not to have someone else's opinions shoved down their throat, most especially when the someone else's opinion is contrary to their own, and 'shoved down their throat' means 'coerced to act in accordance with'.
The 'letting go' of people who as a group are more likely to produce consumable goods than other analogous groups, could be avoided by 'not letting them go'. It is possible that this could be achieved.

2)Depends in part what you mean by 'private property'.
Under a communistic system, would I not have to give my earned money back to the people who paid me?
Not necessarily.

My question is would I sing for very much longer, If I don’t gain anything from it?
That would depend on a variety of factors; why were you singing?
But would I give soul crunching concerts, no, because there would be no point.
Depends.

It is entirely possible that a society could function without money, and be communistic.
It is entirely possible that a society not prevent any and every unequal distribution of property, and be communistic.
It is entirely possible that a society be communistic and offer non-property rewards that serve as 'motivators' in place of 'property based' rewards.
It is entirely possible that a particular person, regardless of property rewards, will choose to perform soul crunching concerts, in fact it is possible that a particular person might even willingly choice to incur a loss of property/property type rewards, in order to be able to perform soul crunching concerts.

It is not necessary that a communistic society eliminate or not be characterised by 'family'. Your children are not your property for instance.


3) Who can say absolutely? The definition of 'bad' would need to be clarified for a start.
I expect that in the case of many, if not most, definitions of bad, selfishness would not always be bad, nor always not bad.

Am I advocating selfishness to an extreme. Sure why not,
I've done no empiracal study into the issue, but based on my general observations, extremism is something I percieve as usually best avoided.

4) Various societies that appear consistent with the underlying intent of communistic philosophy, and 'functional' have existed.

It isnt necessary that a communist society would erradicate any and all reward differntials.
‘Each to his Ability, and each according to his Need.’
It's a slogan. A society can be communist without acting in accordance with it.

Nothing you have pointed out, indicates an insurmountable barrier, nor have the moral concerns you raised, been demonstrated as generally more troublesome than the moral concerns that can be argued occur or could occur in non-communist societies.

I don't know, I'm not entirely thrilled with the public education system; I think it's results are glorified a lot because no one wants to admit we're basically just babysitting these kids so they're not out spraypainting giant cocks on the barn or setting fire to the neighbor's car. Having been through it fairly recently myself, I distinctly remember being taught the same thing several times, and multiple years were spent on concepts like long division, which isn't very difficult after a few hours of more or less forced concentration. I beleive the Eductation system is structured around the cultural expectancy we have for children to remain..... well, children until age 18.

I would, of course, have to look at numbers to back up a claim like this but I would venture to say the same result could be attained with a lot less funding by cutting out most of middle school and late elementary school completely. If I were in charge, public education would be done with your kid a lot sooner and he might actually end up having to be [i]productive earlier in life.


You pretty much skated by my question...

I didn't say "privatize all education after middle school." I stated, "privatize all education." No qualifiers, except "no vouchers," because "vouchers" are primarily used by privatization advocates to make their idea more palatable to the general public.

I'll agree with you that there's waste in the curriculum; I've recently been through public school myself.;) But I believe very strongly that education is a product that an unregulated free market would underproduce, because only the rich would be able to afford a full K-college education. Completely turning education over to the free market would wipe out half the middle class in a generation or two, simply because formal education is so damned expensive.

Now granted, the kids would get at least the equivalent of elementary school education from their parents, but could you imagine a postindustrial society where half the adults haven't even been to a high school class? That's pretty scary to me...

Moreover, the government does not require you to school your kids at its own schools; it just wants to see that your children get educated somehow, which is why yummy things like homeschooling and private schools exist despite government "meddling" in education.

The free market is not a panacea for every problem under the sun. It can be damned good at determining supply and demand for cheap plastic crap, but other things, not so much.

I have several questions that I will Number and then answer myself, if you come up with different answers than please feel free to share, or if you lack the brain power to come up with intelligent answers of your own, please feel free to attack my answers, it only seems fair so you know.

Sorry, but you don't really seem to have an idea of how political arguments work. A real debater (Hint: Most presidential candidates won't fall into this category) states his point without an attack, merely telling the merits of their idea. Few people do that these days, so can you please be one of the few who do next time?

I realize this sounds hypocritical, but in a case like this, you can't tell a person something like that in a really nice way.


1) Is it Morally acceptable to force someone to accept your philosophy? Ie: is it morally correct to enforce your sole beliefs on to each and every person, no matter what?
You cannot force someone to accept your philosophy, no. The idea of Communism is that everyone accepts the idea, and lives together in harmony. However, since that won't happen in any scenario, you have to let people go.

Another pillar of communism is that the smarter ones would be enlightened enough to not care about money enough to seek it so blatantly. They should be more interested in helping mankind than in helping themselves (i.e. Mother Theresa). So the people who do not buy into your philosophy will be gone, and only the believers stay.

2) Can you truly ever get rid of private property, and if you did would that be the correct thing to have done?

No. But the complete absence of private property is ridiculous. When will a person not have something to call their own? Even in a communistic society, people will have their homes, or their clothes, or something that they will at least consider theirs, much as an apartment renter considers the apartment his own.

3) Is selfishness such a bad thing?

Yes. When has being selfish brought everyone gain? Your selfishness takes away things from others. Selfishness with money causes Wal-Mart to create their products in third-world countries, paying the workers insanely small amounts of money. The movement of jobs overseas is even costing us, with the loss of many industrial jobs, and even computer support jobs. America's selfishness is costing everyone chances, even our own countrymen.

If the money saved by shopping for cheap, foreign-made goods were recycled back into the foreign countries economy, then it would be a bit better. However, all but a few just pocket the extra money, to be used to buy more cheap goods. I realize there is no easy solution to the problem. The choice must be made to either support American-made goods (But denying poorer countries more money to flow into their economy), or to support foreign-made goods (Denying Americans jobs, and supporting many of the rich lords who will use the power they have with all their money to keep the workers subdued). Not easy, but selfishness has created this problem.

4) Is the philosophy behind Communism truly and utterly sound? Does it work in other situations?

Yes. How is a group society not a sound philosophy? If freedoms are allowed (Not like Soviet Russia, the worst example of Communism in the world. Using that as the benchmark for Communism is like using Chicken Noodle soup with rotten chicken, moldy noodles, and bitter broth as the example of all Soup.), then the people should be happy. More joy comes out of helping fellow men than comes out of helping yourself.

Stuff
I skated your question because, simply put, I don't have political control of the country nor do I have the DoE figures in front of me to find out, so I can't answer it directly. Instead, I answered with an anecdote about how I would try to run things. I thought we were just lobbing stuff out there and not exactly debating per se, at least not yet. Think of it more of my own thesis statement and less of an answer to your question. Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted you, but I'd venture to guess you'd still assume I was trying in vain to answer, so meh.

Oh, I can't help it. This jsut fell right into my lap:

More joy comes out of helping fellow men than comes out of helping yourself.
It does? On what basis do you choose to make this claim? Joy--and the source of joy--varies from person to person. No one thing is guaranteed to make everyone happy, and in fact no one thing triggers an identical emotional response from all people, which dooms the above theory to falsehood.

You might get more joy from 'helping fellow men,' but I get more from verbally beating down Socialists in debates. Values tend to vary a bit [but have the same basis] from person to person.

Fellow men can kiss my ass. That's right, I'm Scrooge, bitch!

I skated your question because, simply put, I don't have political control of the country nor do I have the DoE figures in front of me to find out, so I can't answer it directly. Instead, I answered with an anecdote about how I would try to run things. I thought we were just lobbing stuff out there and not exactly debating per se, at least not yet. Think of it more of my own thesis statement and less of an answer to your question. Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted you, but I'd venture to guess you'd still assume I was trying in vain to answer, so meh.

Meh...

I was trying to point out one of the extremes of "OMG!! Cap1tal1sm 1s t3h Üb3rg00d!!!11![shift+eleventy-one]!!1!"

As I said earlier in the thread, I am neither a capitalist nor a communist, because I am well aware of the extremes that either system is capable of reaching.

My quarrel is pretty much with people who believe that [insert pet idea here] is perfect, the solution to all humanity's problems, etc. Which seems to be the attitude of a lot of capitalists and communists alike.

At least you admitted you skated my original question. I probably should quit while I'm ahead because bed beckons...:p

Lessee...

What do you do with the people who don’t want to be part of the communist state? You can’t very well be practicing free and open ideas if you chain someone to your country, but if you let them leave who do you lose? Certainly. Agreed thus far.

In general the people who are most anticommunist are people such as Industrialists and Inventors. What happens to your country when this type of person leaves? What are you left with? You have all the bits and pieces of the puzzle except the men of ability.I don't know if this is true, but for the sake of argument, I'll say that it is. While it may be true that the inventors generally leave, most of the stuff that is currently out there is rather useless. If there were fewer useless inventions, the world wouldn't be a worse place.

So what do you do with these people who pop up and want no part of it? Well the safest thing to say would be to let them go right? But if you let them go and they go to the country next door, which happens to be a capitalistic country, what happens to that country. It prospers do to the fact that capitalism trumps communism due to eats dog eat dog philosophy.I disagree. While it will be true that people will be leaving to go to capitalist countries, it will also be true that people will be fleeing the capitalist countries for the communist one(s). Certainly the "dogs that have been eaten" would wish to go.
You might say that the communist society would be worse off as it accepts the dregs of the capitalist society, but this isn't necessarily true. After all, how many inventors had a bunch of bad ideas that didn't work out before they came up with a really good one? This is just one example.

Okay then so what. Well when they prospered, and start to get wealthier, what happens to your poor people in your country? They go and look over the border and say, wow, that man has a TV, I don’t, maybe if I go over there I can get a TV. And the reverse is true: many people in the capitalist societies will see that they can get more if wealth were redistributed, so they would cross the border.

Now then do you let that man go over? If you say yes, I ask you what happens to your nation as more and more men flee to the so called “illusion” of capitalism? If you say no, I ask what happened to freedom, and aren’t you now enforcing your beliefs on someone else? To the first question I say your nation collapses, and to the second I say that yes, you are jamming your philosophy down someone else throat, are you not?Yes, if everyone leaves the nation will collapse. Agreed here.

2# I am a firm believer in private property and this is why, because to get rid of it is to touch a lot of icky subjects. I believe in personal property, but not private property. The only justification for owning something is that you use it, especially land. So I would have no problem telling people that they couldn't have such things.

I've snipped the rest of your questions because others have answered them to my satisfaction.

3# This was something I saw, the frequent calling of capitalists selfish and anti social minded. I ask in return is Selfishness such a bad thing? Nikitas answered this well. I dislike selfishness, but "rational self-interest" is fine. And communism maximizes my self-interest, so I selfishly support the system.

4# Lastly my question on whether the system is good or not. We will venture to a school. Now then we all know that a C is average an A is passing and that an F is failing, correct? Well then here is the example of why I most disagree with this philosophy. Suppose you earn an A, Earn it. And suppose someone else Earns an F by his effort and you did your best, and he slack. Well as a fellow human being it is your duty to do your work so that you get a C which is average, and take on his work so that he gets a C, as well. Is that not what you ask people to do. If I am at a Job that earns me $100,000 because I worked and I tried, and some Joe-Bob makes $20,000 a year because he didn’t bother to graduate, is it fair to take $40,000, of MY hard earned dollars and give them to Joe-Bob, so that we’re even. I think not.Why would a communistic society support lazy people?

This is the problem, if we follow the whole ‘Each to his Ability, and each according to his Need.’ And this is why. The slogan says ability, not effort. People will be expected to perform to their abilities. (I do agree that this is just a slogan, and that not all communists support it, but I argued in favor of it anyway.)

I ask how is there need greater than mine? Need can be objectively measured, i.e. the necessities of life. So I can quite easily state that someone who is starving needs food more than someone who isn't starving.

Hmmm...I have an idea.

Let's privatize education. Completely. No vouchers.

Let's see what happens when half the population can't afford any education at all.
A lot of people take this as some kind of apodictic truth. But there is no reason to think that private education wouldn't be at least as good for poor people as public education. In fact, for real poor people (not "poor" westerners, slum dwellers in "third world" countries) private, for profit, schools often is a better alternative than public schools.

EDIT: Some links. I used to have a link to a real research paper on this, but I can't find it now. At least here are some comments that might interest you.

http://www.educationnext.org/20054/22.html

http://www.cato.org/events/050908pf.html

Just because it's so funny:

A nationwide survey commissioned by Columbia Law School in May 2002 revealed that an alarming number of voting age Americans have serious misconceptions about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Almost two-thirds think Karl Marx's dogma, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" either was, or may have been, included in the Constitution.

Question: Does the Constitution include the following statement about the proper role of government: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

Answer:

Yes: 35%
No: 31%
Don't Know: 34%

Source. (http://www.wethepeople.gov/newsroom/amnesia.html)

To begin with I will take back this thread in the name of productive argument, While all you one liners were certainly enjoyable, I would have vastly preferred If you had made decent arguments. But alas such is life, now to clear up misconceptions.

1# What do you do with lazy people in a communist society?

Firstly and foremost, in a capitalistic society, these people are dealt with because if they don’t work, then no one supports them. Except for things like family, but eventually that person would have to go out and work, no? In a communistic society the state pays me my wages right, well who is the state to say that I must work so much. Who decides what is lazy, and what need is? The state of course. Well then do any of you see the problem here? What stops the state from saying your need is less than it really is. What stops a person from saying, oh that person can’t work, but they’re not lazy, they have anti-worker syndrome.

The problem is that who decides who works how much, if a company hires you and you work too much and get paid to little, you can quit. What option do you have in a communistic society?

2# What constitutes love for a job?

If I told you that you could earn five dollars for working 8 hours and earn five dollars for working one hour which would you choose. Perhaps I love my job, but would I continue to work for no tangible benefit. Where is the progression? I have heard comparisons of hobbies, but you don’t work at a hobby to earn a living. True you do it for fun, but if you had to do that hobby for a living, wouldn’t you want to get something back. If you continually gave some one gifts, wouldn’t you expect to get one in return?

I heard it said that one would not have to give what he had earned away. I ask how then are you equal? Where is the line of equality? If I work and make 50 dollars, and some one makes 30 dollars. Are we not unequal? How then is this rectified, with out stealing my money.

3#Which makes more money, Capitalism, or Communism?

I would now like to point out that every communistic country on the face of the globe has failed. I would like to point out that those few remaining, have either become complete backwaters, or have decided to convert partially to capitalism. You say that people would flee to communistic countries from capitalistic ones. I say does anyone recount the Berlin Wall? That was not built to keep the capitalists out. But rather the communists in. I would like to say that America for better or worse, did win the Cold War. I think that that alone should tell people that one for one, the capitalistic system will trump communism every time.

4# My thoughts on Selfishism

I wasn’t advocating an extreme, if you would be so kind as to read the line directly after that statement which you so cunningly quoted. It should say, Just…Kidding…One wonders what one was trying to make me say? If it’s not there it should have been and I’m sorry for the misconception.

5# Debate

I use lengthy word because I can, if your mind can’t keep up, please don’t make posts asserting that your mind can’t keep up. For my debate style, I would like to say this is not a debate, but a fruitful discussion. If you wish to have a debate, perhaps you could email, or telegram me. I don’t know, but I just wanted to have a conversation. Not a hardcore drop down bare-knuckle debate.

Again thank you for your time and the dazzling interest in my thread, if you disagree and can come up with nothing please don’t call me a “poopy-head” just don’t post.

Excuse me for the brief Interruption into the meaningless but I actually wanted to hold a decent discussion on a topic. Sorry if I step on any toes or happen to spew false statements in the paragraphs that follow, I try very hard to remember my points and alas sometimes a few of them will slip from my mind, or become slightly altered so please feel free to point out my erroneous information. And that would be factual stuff, not you think greens a cool color, that’s so not true. Please, have good judgment, even though that may be asking a bit from some individuals.

Now the real point in me bring up this topic per say, Is that I was curious on several aspects that were being discussed in one of the recent Communism vs. Capitalism debates I had several questions that I wanted answered. Rather than side track the whole pointlessness of the debate I decided to start My own link. Hope none of you mind.

Now then to begin;

I have several questions that I will Number and then answer myself, if you come up with different answers than please feel free to share, or if you lack the brain power to come up with intelligent answers of your own, please feel free to attack my answers, it only seems fair so you know.

1) Is it Morally acceptable to force someone to accept your philosophy? Ie: is it morally correct to enforce your sole beliefs on to each and every person, no matter what?

2) Can you truly ever get rid of private property, and if you did would that be the correct thing to have done?

3) Is selfishness such a bad thing?

4) Is the philosophy behind Communism truly and utterly sound? Does it work in other situations?

Okay that’s all I have some of them may seem bland but, eh, life’s life. I will then proceed to answer my own questions, if you have decided I am already a total idiot that doesn’t know what he/she/it is talking about then please feel free to skip down and right your own skewed version of my questions without bothering to get the real concept behind the words. So therefore and what not my answers in descending order.



1# To be quite honest I suspect that everyone will agree that it isn’t acceptable to jam your opinions down someone else’s throat. Correct? Correct. How ever here is where we get into one of what I see as one of the key problems with communism. What do you do with the people who don’t want to be part of the communist state? You can’t very well be practicing free and open ideas if you chain someone to your country, but if you let them leave who do you lose? In general the people who are most anticommunist are people such as Industrialists and Inventors. What happens to your country when this type of person leaves? What are you left with? You have all the bits and pieces of the puzzle except the men of ability.

Now then you can always argue that in a perfect society there wouldn’t be anybody who would want to leave. However since we live in a mortal world and nothing is ever perfect when can probably scratch the import of that argument. For seriousness you have to accept that we live in a flawed reality, and that as such any society will have a kink in it somewhere. So what do you do with these people who pop up and want no part of it? Well the safest thing to say would be to let them go right? But if you let them go and they go to the country next door, which happens to be a capitalistic country, what happens to that country. It prospers do to the fact that capitalism trumps communism due to eats dog eat dog philosophy.

Okay then so what. Well when they prospered, and start to get wealthier, what happens to your poor people in your country? They go and look over the border and say, wow, that man has a TV, I don’t, maybe if I go over there I can get a TV. That’s a crude example, but this is a crude answer so work with me. Now then do you let that man go over? If you say yes, I ask you what happens to your nation as more and more men flee to the so called “illusion” of capitalism? If you say no, I ask what happened to freedom, and aren’t you now enforcing your beliefs on someone else? To the first question I say your nation collapses, and to the second I say that yes, you are jamming your philosophy down someone else throat, are you not?

2# I am a firm believer in private property and this is why, because to get rid of it is to touch a lot of icky subjects. To begin with, I ask you to play with this scenario. Everyone gets paid the same amount of money, 50 dollars each. Now then I can sing, I am a very good singer, In fact I’m so good I elect to have a concert. Now there are 50 people in the community and me. They all come and I charge a dollar. That means that I make 50 dollars and they each lose a dollar. Now I have 100 dollars and they all have 49 dollars. Under a communistic system, would I not have to give my earned money back to the people who paid me? That’s preposterous, but it is what would happen, isn’t it? So that we are all equal? My question is would I sing for very much longer, If I don’t gain anything from it? Sure I would, to myself and maybe a few friends. But would I give soul crunching concerts, no, because there would be no point.

Do you see the line we cross? Are your kids yours? Of course they are, and you can raise your kids. But if we lived in a truly communistic society, could such a thing as families be tolerated. For all seriousness, that is private ownership. If I save my wage to pass on to my kids, would you say ‘no that’s unacceptable you must share it with the man who spent it on alcohol.’ Under public ownership you would. You see when everything is everyone’s, there becomes no point in doing something when you can simply loot it from the people who do. For those of you who say there are no people like this I would point to the people who live on welfare, and whose parents have lived on welfare, and whose parents’ parents have lived on welfare. There are those kind of people, who will leech and give nothing back.

3# This was something I saw, the frequent calling of capitalists selfish and anti social minded. I ask in return is Selfishness such a bad thing? Now everyone at first glance says yes, selfishness is a bad thing. Well then I must say that everyone who now lives in a First World Country is selfish. After all you have a house, and have the liberty to type on the computer to respond to my post. Are you not aware, that at this moment 30,000 children are starving to death? That someone is being Raped? That there are millions dieing from curable diseases? That there are billions living under oppression? How dare you be so selfish as to live in a house, how dare you be so selfish as to succeed. How dare you be so selfish as to be happy while these people suffer. How dare you. Why aren’t you giving all you have to them? You say that you are. Impossible, you can always do more, you should be over there right now. If it was someone you cared for would you be happy if they wree there, would you be happy if they were suffering. Would you not be over there right at this moment helping.

If not you are surely flirting with selfishness.

Am I advocating selfishness to an extreme. Sure why not, because if more people were selfish we would live in a better world. Just kidding, but the point of this is that selfishness is not as absolutely horribly as people make it out to be. If you jump in the water to save your husband over a stranger, that’s being selfish. If you give a toy to a strangers child rather than your own that’s being unselfish. It is important not to draw conclusions that don’t exist.

4# Lastly my question on whether the system is good or not. We will venture to a school. Now then we all know that a C is average an A is passing and that an F is failing, correct? Well then here is the example of why I most disagree with this philosophy. Suppose you earn an A, Earn it. And suppose someone else Earns an F by his effort and you did your best, and he slack. Well as a fellow human being it is your duty to do your work so that you get a C which is average, and take on his work so that he gets a C, as well. Is that not what you ask people to do. If I am at a Job that earns me $100,000 because I worked and I tried, and some Joe-Bob makes $20,000 a year because he didn’t bother to graduate, is it fair to take $40,000, of MY hard earned dollars and give them to Joe-Bob, so that we’re even. I think not.

This is the problem, if we follow the whole ‘Each to his Ability, and each according to his Need.’ Then those of us with ability are chained to those without it. I ask how is there need greater than mine? How can you say I must do such a thing, Isn’t that forcing your principles down My throat?

Alas that is all I have the strength to say, I would take the time to praise two extraordinary minds that gave me these insights, I only wish I was better at conveying there ideas. The two works and there authors are, respectively, Atlas Shrugged, By an Ayn Rand, and, Anarchy, State and Utopia; By Robert Nozick.

To all of you who have gotten this far I thank kindly for your time, and hope that you’ll write something decent back. Please! No one liners, make a decent argument, not a line by line rebuttal. Thank you again, and I apologize for the numerous errors that may have occurred.


We don't force people to stay they can stay or leave of their own free will, you're confusing us with the stalinists and maoists. Two, People can still have their property you can even decide on who gets to use it. Yes selfishness id a bad thing, but there is no inherently selfless act. Everything by a person can be attributed to his/her desire for something. And, on the last point, you, are still thinking in terms of capitalism. Relating to grades there would be no tests or even schools in the current sense as they represent hirearchy. In communism, there would be no specific form of money but instead the use of barter as it prevents any form of class based on economics.

Please, when talking about communism don't use the so called "comminism" of stalin as that is not actual communism

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I didn't mean to take up all your sweet time; I'll give it right back to you one of these days"-Jimi Hendrix, Voodoo Child

3#Which makes more money, Capitalism, or Communism?

I would now like to point out that every communistic country on the face of the globe has failed. I would like to point out that those few remaining, have either become complete backwaters, or have decided to convert partially to capitalism. You say that people would flee to communistic countries from capitalistic ones. I say does anyone recount the Berlin Wall? That was not built to keep the capitalists out. But rather the communists in. I would like to say that America for better or worse, did win the Cold War. I think that that alone should tell people that one for one, the capitalistic system will trump communism every time.

If you consider nations like the USSR or Cuba to be communist, I'd say they were pretty successful. The USSR went from a mostly agrarian society to the atomic bomb in 50 years - that is quite impressive. And Cuba is actually doing pretty fine, if you consider the almost complete embargo it has been under for some 40 years.

Novak your comments do not account for the following points.

Communism can exist in a society in which a state does not pay a wage.

What people consider to be sufficient reward or acceptable cost in regards to their activities, is varied. People can do choose to forgo particular possible rewards of all kinds, for all kinds of reasons. What people consider to be a 'reward' or a 'return' is varied.

A society can have a distribution of possession/ownership/use-rights of material goods that includes some people having more of these things than others, and be communistic.

The existence of money and/or wages are not necessary conditions for the existence of a communistic society.