NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems, from the various threads comparing capitalism to socialism, that there is a continuity between opportunity and security. In the purest form of capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, we maximize opportunity. Power can be gained by any means, even through armed force, and the strong rule, their positions always dependent on the lack of a competent challenger, and if people starve, then people starve. It's social darwinism.

In contrast, the maximum of security would have everyone more or less equal, everything is controlled, there is no advancement, no dreams, no hopes for the future. Everyone is just a cog in the machine, and the machine's only purpose is to keep itself going.

I believe that the optimal position is somewhere in the middle. Where I can invent something new, or start a business, or master a trade, or whatever, and reap rewards from that, but where I can also be assured that I and my children will not risk starvation, that their health will be provided for, and that a turn in the market will not leave me on the street for the rest of my life.

I believe that all you people arguing for one extreme or the other (anarcho-capitalism, Anarcho-communism, or complete socialism) are delusional, honestly believing that human nature can be changed to such a degree that either of these systems is possible without descending into simple anarchy on the right side, and a system for oppression on the left.

Of course, those of us who have read Jennifer Government know that the system may very likely be closer to feudalism.

It seems, from the various threads comparing capitalism to socialism, that there is a continuity between opportunity and security. In the purest form of capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, we maximize opportunity. Power can be gained by any means, even through armed force, and the strong rule, their positions always dependent on the lack of a competent challenger, and if people starve, then people starve. It's social darwinism.

You don't know too much about capitalism if you think force is legal under it, frankly.

Doesn't anyone have anything to say?

Opportunity is rather nice, although the less often people point a gun in my face the better.

Economic opportunity with national security is the way to roll.

Call it fascism if you want.

Alright, wheres the guy with the pic that says,

Aw jeeze, not this shit again!


All of your arguments are based on your opinion, not fact. Much like a NeoCon.

Economic opportunity with national security is the way to roll.

Call it fascism if you want.

Then I will. It's fascism.

Alright, wheres the guy with the pic that says,

Aw jeeze, not this shit again!


All of your arguments are based on your opinion, not fact. Much like a NeoCon.
It would be like a Neocon, if I was advancing this as absolute truth. However, I am instead sharing with you an idea I had. You can disagree with me if you want, but please don't insult me.

My concern is freedom.

Security and opportunity are only important insofar as they further that aim.

My concern is freedom.

Security and opportunity are only important insofar as they further that aim.

I am using opportunity as a synonym for freedom. perhaps I should have used that word instead, perhaps not. What's done is done.

in one system you may have the freedom to print your opinion and distribute it.

In another, you may have the freedom to shoot someone in the head if you happen to have a gun and they don't.

What I am saying is that it is on a continuum.

In another, you may have the freedom to shoot someone in the head if you happen to have a gun and they don't.

But not the freedom to live.

Which is more important?

But not the freedom to live.

Which is more important?

In the context of this conversation the freedom to live would be considered a security. Someone else is losing their freedom to shoot you in the face, and your life becomes more secure. In order for you to have this security, people have to be provided to protect you. They have to be paid somehow. Now you are loosing some of your money to pay for the police who prevent random strangers from killing you.

In the context of this conversation the freedom to live would be considered a security.

So, like I said: I value freedom.

Insofar as security and opportunity promote freedom, I value them as well.

Alright, wheres the guy with the pic that says,

Aw jeeze, not this shit again!


All of your arguments are based on your opinion, not fact. Much like a NeoCon.

http://i17.tinypic.com/4403mg1.jpg

And in response to the OP: what if you are like me and believe that socialism or something like it would be the best system, but also believe that it would be impossible to change human nature enough such that socialism would be truly feasible? Indeed, what if, like me, you believe that humanity as a whole is so corrupt, naive, stupid, or just plain evil that what is truly needed is that the entire human population be wiped out, and the earth be given a chance to recover and perhaps start anew with some new form of intelligent life?

And in response to the OP: what if you are like me and believe that socialism or something like it would be the best system, but also believe that it would be impossible to change human nature enough such that socialism would be truly feasible? Indeed, what if, like me, you believe that humanity as a whole is so corrupt, naive, stupid, or just plain evil that what is truly needed is that the entire human population be wiped out, and the earth be given a chance to recover and perhaps start anew with some new form of intelligent life?

Wow. I think you are producing a solid form of cynicism. To answer your question (if it can be answered) I just hope that you, and those like you, don't ever get the kind of power to do this. We are not perfect, and by accepting that, we could design a system that works. Or we could, you know, just give up, but I doubt any other intelligent species is going to make a pure socialist utopia work, either.

well... that is all what it boils down to. What should be looked at as the primary issue?

To me, i see it all as a matter of effeciency. When you run a buisness... you don't exactly want all of your employees to bitch and demand that they should have a say in your buisness... but at the same time- why shouldn't you keep your employees happy?

Another point to keep in mind is that how often in school who had the same interests as you, the same grades as you, and the same body build as you?
no one is equal and no one share the exact same interests. so to me- complete and true socialism makes little sense.

so to have more of a happy country... moderation is necessary... to have an effecient country, extremity is very necessary.

i might've just said absolutely nothing... so lets see where this takes us/
by the way- hi. i'm new here.