Printable View
Only when you buy that ticket, you're paying for the popcorn and the movie. In this case, I earn the money and they are taking it from me. So, actually, rather than buying that with something else, I'm having it taken from me on the basis that I earned it.
earned it with the the help of the government in the first place. materity care, vaccinations, education, other health care stuff, tax credits, benefits. the government helped you get that far so it could even be seen as paying for services used.
What if I don't want the services?
Ireland is the greatest civilisation ever because we invended fighting, alcoholism and the colour westerners call 'green'. Actually I believe the only thing Ireland ever invented was the ejector-seat in aircraft...I'll get back to you on that. In the meantime HERE'S COME ENYA YW!!11
The Zulu Civilization was a great civilization but the only problem with them are that their leaders were very arrogant and stupid.
Then their's the Irouqis Nations. The unification of the Sioux tribes. NAvajo's complex language.
The Mayans, Aztecs,and Incans.
BTW the Aztec's used sacrifice as a weapon of terror to control its territory it gained.
http://www.g2mil.com/Oct2003.htm
I agree with cloud. Socialist policies can benefit society. Hachifusa, have you read animal farm? "All people are equal ... some are more equal than others"?? In a free market capitalist society theoretically all are equal, but why should i be disadvantaged because I simply cannot grasp high-order maths and so cannot be employed as a lucrative engineer? Sure it takes hard work to become an enginner, but there are many hard working people who i am sure would like an engineer's salary yet this path, this chioce is not open to them THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. Should they suffer because of this disadvantage. Likewise, should the disabled suffer a lower standard of living in a pure capitalist society because they are not productive members of society. All humans are equal at birth, if im born with down syndrome should i have 'worked harder'?
Im not trying to argue with you (sorry about caps, wanted to emphasise), nor demean you but read the article linket to at the top of post. It is informative. Extreme communism or fascism has been known to execute the mentally ill because they are unproductive members of society, i do not advocate either forms of society. America is a good country, it has less faults than many others but its faults affect the countries around it. Do you think Australia wants to be in Iraq. Sure weve had no casualties, but it is still a waste of money that could be better spent on social services/health/education that is instead wasted on following American warmongering.
Also, the american voting system is not free or democratic. The 'First past the post" system is archaic, preferential voting allows the minority a voice. It is suspected that Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000 but because of the loopholes in the system, bush was able to secure victroy.
ramble ramble. I only come online every day or two so posts are correspondingly long. I also agree with cloud about the rich-poor gap which, in extreme free market societies such as America's are perpetuated through their very nature through institutions such as private schooling and a lack of hecs loans available for university/college courses. there is nothing wrong with rich people, but there is something not right about their childeren obtaining power and wealth through their parent's acievements rather than their own.
Final bit - Capitalism is good because the engineer gets paid the same as the janitor, job choice is not controlled by income. (engineer loses nothing because also recieves salary while in tertiary institution). Imagine being able to chose the job you most desire, thay you will love and not having to worry about the poor pay or lengthy extra education required - That is a true example of freedom.
Yes, it's one of my favorites.Quote:
Originally Posted by FluroChoco
Uh, yeah. Do you want someone who is unable to grasp "high-order maths" to be an engineer? Talk about endangerment. Me, I'm no rocket scientist, so I'm not crying that I could never be a rocket scientist. I'd probably blow the planet up, or something.Quote:
In a free market capitalist society theoretically all are equal, but why should i be disadvantaged because I simply cannot grasp high-order maths and so cannot be employed as a lucrative engineer? Sure it takes hard work to become an enginner, but there are many hard working people who i am sure would like an engineer's salary yet this path, this chioce is not open to them THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. Should they suffer because of this disadvantage.
No, I'm pretty sure people with down syndrome won't be thrown out on the street. People think that freedom makes us all assholes, Christ. It's not that they shouldn't get help, it's that it's not the government's responsibility. I'm fine by charity. If my kid had down syndrome, I wouldn't bitch because the government isn't making him an engineer.Quote:
Likewise, should the disabled suffer a lower standard of living in a pure capitalist society because they are not productive members of society. All humans are equal at birth, if im born with down syndrome should i have 'worked harder'?
Ask them. No one is forcing them to.Quote:
Do you think Australia wants to be in Iraq.
Agreed. I hate the war. But that money shouldn't even be held by the government. Let the government take care of what the government should take care of and let the social services be held by the individual.Quote:
Sure weve had no casualties, but it is still a waste of money that could be better spent on social services/health/education that is instead wasted on following American warmongering.
orly.Quote:
Also, the american voting system is not free or democratic.
That's because pure democracy is mob-rule, another reason that America isn't a democracy (I hate when people say that) but a constitutional republic. True democracy is putting the people above the individual. In the democractic world, if fifty-one percent of the people deemed the other forty-nine to die, it'd be legal enough - majority rulesQuote:
The 'First past the post" system is archaic, preferential voting allows the minority a voice. It is suspected that Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000 but because of the loopholes in the system, bush was able to secure victroy.
How about making education completely private?Quote:
I also agree with cloud about the rich-poor gap which, in extreme free market societies such as America's are perpetuated through their very nature through institutions such as private schooling and a lack of hecs loans available for university/college courses. there is nothing wrong with rich people, but there is something not right about their childeren obtaining power and wealth through their parent's acievements rather than their own.
Uh, what? No, he doesn't.Quote:
Final bit - Capitalism is good because the engineer gets paid the same as the janitor, job choice is not controlled by income.
You have that choice to your own job, but if you're avoiding the poor pay or lengthy extra education, that means that you're avoiding what's needed to perform the job. These requirements aren't arbitrarily put on jobs. Sorry, but engineers need "high-order maths", and if some math retard wails that he's entitled to the job because he sucks, his problem. You also kind of need to be educated to be a doctor. It'd be really nice, sure, if I could just be a lawyer without training for it and making the salary without knowing what I'm doing, but what you're advocating isn't political freedom - it's metaphysical freedom, or freedom from reality.Quote:
Imagine being able to chose the job you most desire, thay you will love and not having to worry about the poor pay or lengthy extra education required - That is a true example of freedom.
Why should a janitor earn ~$20000 a year when an engineeer can earn >$60000 ? Im not saying the maths retard whinges about not being allowed to be an engineer, but he/she has a right to be upset because he gets paid poorly because hie isn't a maths whiz.
Who would feed an clothe a person with down syndrome for their entire life. if you say his parents than they are unfairly disadvantaged, its not their fault that they had a disabled child, how could they have worked harder? If its not the governments responsibilty whos is it? Im not bitching because he isnt allowed to be an engineer, im 'bitching' because the engineer recieves unfair advantages.
I am an Australian you foo. And i think Iraq sucks.
This is what i think the government should take care of:
-public education so that those from 'lazy and therefore poor parents' are not disadvantaged
-Public health so that those with health problems beyound their control are not disadvantaged
-Law and order to maintain basic human rights and a functional society abd to prevent swindle, slander ect
-International relations such as trade agreements, tarrifs, world politics, and defense (note- defense, not military)
-Services and utilities such as roads, publilc open space, electricity, water ect
-some nother things that ive forgotten for the moment
If you disagree with any tell me WHY and i will listen, Im enjoying this, you are obvioulsy quite intelligent (you like animal farm, you know its about communism?)
Bush may not have got 51% of the 2000 election, the way the whole states thing goes. Preferential voting is Good for the minority. Say i want to vote for charlie because i want him to win, but i know that he will probably only get 10% of the vote, i can put his as my 1st preference. In your system my vote would be a waste because charlie would not win. however, say i would rather one of the two remaining candidates over the other, putting them as my second preference means that my vote counts while stil supporting Charlie. In your system i either have to waste my vote showing my support for Charile , or not support charlie, and thus hamper his chances in the next election, by voting for the lesser of two evils.
Why should'nt education be made completely private? Because it means that if i have rich parents i can recieve a good educatiojn and consequently become rich myself, whereas if i am poor my parents probably cannot afford to educate me and i am thus confined to the lower class of society. this is not free because the poor child has no choice as to where he/she wants their life to go. It perpetuates the rich-poor gap, the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, there is no movement inbetween the classes.
In a pure communist society, everyone employed recieves the same salary (i prefer a system where hard workers recieve pay insentives, note hard workers not skilled workers) so they would.
I dont think you understand, a person who wants to be a janitor is not put off from the job by low pay because it recieves the same salary as any other job. A person who wants to be an engineer is not deterred by the fact that they have to go and spend 5 years at uni earning nothing because they are supported by the government at this time the same as everyone else. Im not saying that these requirements are arbitrary, but im saying that they do not have to be disadvantages.
Communism vs. Capitalism
Threads seem to inenvitably be pulled into this discourse. So which is right? Which is wrong?
Perhaps it comes down to preference. Such as in an online game some like the "hardcore" servers and some like the "carebare" servers.
Is either wrong?
My personal view is that Capitalism would relate to "hardcore" and Communism would relate to "carebare" in the example above. Of course I may have skewed view of communism.
Capitalism- While free revolves around money(particually the making it part)
Communism- Does not revolve around money(since you don't make more then anyone else).
In a true communisnistic society I imagine that thier would be no money at all. It would all be community labor etc. You would help with what you wanted to, etc. These leaves room for people to exploit the system(by not working and still recieve benifits). But quite frankly I few it as better then capitalism. Unfortunately as has been mentioned it doesn't work well on a large scale.. or so far we havn't figured out how to do so.
Communism as has been stated is many times the system between freinds, thus it could help bring a community together. The problem lies when people just "ride" the system. So true communism is an "ideal type" society that won't happen(most likely). However, a nerfed communism could possibly work under the right conditions. There could be penalties for not contributing(thus you would have lower living conditions, etc). However with no money it would mean 2 things must be met. A)that you are self-suffiencent and don't need to deal with other countries B) you don't any conflicts that turn militarily... I doubt in a moneyless society that their would be large standing armies. Perhaps militias but not actual armies.
Out of what actually works a capitalistic/communistic merger may be best(or capitalism with socialistic programs that work... keep in mind they must work or it is a waste.. as many(if not all) of America's socialistic programs are). Doesn't mean they are bad ideas.. just that they need altered for our society.
And don't throw the crap about communism being evil.. blah.. blah ... blah. Just as you say there was never a true laisefaire(I botched that spelling all to heck) capitalistic society there was also never a true communistic society(not to my knowledge anyways). We are argueing ideals when we argue those, and thus real world examples are flawed at best. However, when arguing about implementation and what works it is fairly obvious that what works best is a capitalistic/socialistic type merger. Course we have never had true laisefaire(at least I am consistant) capitalism or true communism so we don't know if they would work better, we can only speculate.
And since I can't even recall what I was typing or where I was going I'll leave it with this, just so that I don't repeat myself and/or find the max length post limit(if there is one).
Consistent - you consistently spell wrong :) jk
BTW i was going to get to that- good aspects of capitalism and communism.
When trying to analyse real world examples thought through communist and capitalist- I believe that capitalism promotes international agression (eg wars for profits - Iraq's oil) which i feel is wrong. America has become too capitalist in my view. It needs to implement socialist policies to lessen the rich poor gap (not a healthy part of this society) and implement a preferential voting system, only problem is capitalists in power... and are rich so want to maintain capitalist society to ensure they stay rich.
In a state controlled communism a standing army is possible (see Stalin's russia, one of largest standing armies in history). But state controlled communism limits choice and personal freedom (no free market competition adding diversity to society)
So yeh what can you say?
Right, Left or straight ahead???
No, you don't get to say that. Capitalism is constantly judged on real-world examples, and because sometimes it doesn't serve 100% of the planet (Even the parts of the planet which aren't Capitalist) 100% of the time (Even when it is through an individual's own shortcomings.), that makes Capitalism flawed and to some, evil. However, Communism may not ever ever ever be judged on the real world Communist systems which were actually put into place, because they don't show it in a good light. So essentially, we won't ever be able to judge Communism, because until it works well we will be told 'it wasn't real Communism'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
Yes, there are more branches of Communism which could be attempted, but whilst most variations on Capitalism have shown themselves to be reasonable effective and prosperity-creating, every form of Communism has shown itself to have a hard time creating anything worthwhile. Yes, Soviet Russia produced some spectacular artwork (The Moscow Underground, and Soviet-era sculpture, to name but two.), and they even had a good space program (In fairness the Commies did pretty much everything before us except get to the moon itself in the space race.), but it came at the very great cost of lives and personal freedoms. On the other hand, Capitalist nations did the same thing without costing those. I'll take some delays and inefficiency, thanks.
It ain't till it neccesarily works well.. it is till it is put in the way it was meant to be. Albeit I may have a skewed perception of it. I haven't gotten to indepth in the theory.
You see many of those countries that currently and previous claimed to be communist... well they weren't. They are as close to true communism as we(the US) are now to Laisefaire. We aren't, they aren't/weren't. However , it is possible to view them as off branches of communism. But they are twisted branches. And I am sure someone could twist capitalism quite nastily as well.
Soul Sonic Force!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
The reason an engineer gets paid more than a janitor is not entirely because of what they know. There are simply more people fluent in the custodial arts. You have to pay engineers more to recruit and retain them. Kinda like supply and demand.
You think that capitalism doesn't cost lives or personal freedoms (*cough*Vietnam*). Sure, ill agree with you, communist russia was pretty bad, it didn't give its people a choice, it let its astronauts die because it couldnt be bothered to test the landing parachutes properly. But the good parts of commmunism, the ones that dont cost personal freedoms or lives we call 'socialism', these are the parst that lessen the rich-poor gap and give the impoverished a voice and a chance while still maintining an effective democratic system (i.e balanced, effective political parties). For example, the socialist parties in Britian and Australia (i dont know about america).
It's easy to close the gap by simply making everybody poor.