Who do you think is the greatest civilisation ever? Mine are the chinese we had chemical bombs by the 12th century! + we created fireworks ^_^
Printable View
Who do you think is the greatest civilisation ever? Mine are the chinese we had chemical bombs by the 12th century! + we created fireworks ^_^
Modern-day western capitalism and individualism offers more freedom of choice, in lifestyle, and of wealth than any other system which has ever been attempted. As I believe in the importance of the individual over all else; The USA, which at least has lower taxes than Canada, the UK, and most likely Australia and Japan as well.
Yeah pretty much lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Also current western civilization doesn't keep its information secret.
If oyu look at the Romans and what they achieved.WEll only a few minority in the Empire even knew how things worked. How the aqeduct worked,How to make the proper siege weapons, How to design bridges,heck even how the Collessium was made. ..This knowledge was never shared.Plus back then only about 10 million humans were alive anyway.
i really think romans where the greatest sivilication you dont see much sivilications who had all of europe (except the places wich held no intrest and or money) and a part of africa though there are so much greet sivilications
I don't really think there is a "greatest" civilization. Great yes.. but greatest? nah.
All civs had ups and downs.
Hmm.. I am sure the US keeps plenty secret from it's people. Albeit it is prolly less then what was kept unknowable in the past.. but it ain't gone from our world yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
I like Ghengis Khan's empire. He had a suggestion box.
Imperial China, perhaps the oldest and at one point the most technologically advanced civilization on the face of the earth and recently,quantities of evidence have been unearthed which show the Chinese were the first to navigate the globe and much of the unknown world decades before European explorers supposedly " discovered " the Americas,Australia and New Zealand.
I think he more meant how technology works. I mean, yes there are still secrets, but I can go and find a website right now which will tell me the theory behind building a railgun/coilgun capable of punching through a meter of reinforced steel. I already know the theory behind building an atomic bomb, and if I could be bothered I could go learn the math behind it as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
Of course, there are still state secrets and the like and I doubt that'll ever change, and I don't endorse the majority of them being kept either. Nonetheless, I think things are better now than they were way back when.
kyuzo were you watching that program on bbc today about all the stuff the chinese did?
Atlantis.
tuned in the last 5 mins xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Apparently there was a civilization predating Atlantis called " The Great Empire of Mu " in the South Pacific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyuzo
*ahem**Cough cough*
All right listen guys...we all know how the best are. It's the Korean's!!!!! We are smart, we are courageous, we can ply DDR and PULSE! We can sing, we can dance. But most of all we can play soccer, and be the fastest or have great skills!
We eat Kimchi, and we like spicy foods. We especially love rice...and lots of soy sauce!!! So therefore I hence forth Korea is the bestetsestestest ever!!! EVAR!!!!! RWAR!
Ancient Egypt
stargateQuote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
I mean with the advances in technology blah blah blah. lol Trust me lol we don't keep thats tuff secret. But you dohave to pay money to tap into that type of info...(college.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
The romans didn't have many educated people.
All civilizations have grown and learned a great deal from eachother. I think the US has several good points, but I would like to see the gov't take care of more of the citizens basic needs as far as health and better education goes.
It seems that the modern idea of a great civilization is flowing towards individualism. So to me the world empire of tommorrow will be the greatest :tongue: After that of wisconsin of course
Bipper
Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
ERROR. DOES NOT COMPUTE.Quote:
It seems that the modern idea of a great civilization is flowing towards individualism.
I wonder about the Egyptians. How did they carry those 1-ton blocks for their pyramids?
It should comput just fine - I think the government should take care of medical expence, and education - this does not affect individualism.. well too much. Just to see the social neceseties taken care of would be a step forward imo.
I don't see how it can't compute... time for an upgrade?
Bipper
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
I am still fairly certian the gov keeps at least some technological secrets.. Course I can't verify it(it wouldn't be secret if I could).. but as My own MILF said "Of course, there are still state secrets and the like and I doubt that'll ever change, and I don't endorse the majority of them being kept either" I just believe that in these stat secrets may be some techno info.
Then again I have been refered to as being paranoid so it could just be that. But think about human nature. It may not be the whole government.. but rather a small section of it. Now I sound like a conspiritist.. and that is bad. I just think it is easily possible that we don't konw all that the gov(or sections of it) do.. and that includes available(and how to make) certian technologies.
Of course this has no baring on whether or not time is better now then in the past. It is definately better. Though I wonder about the culture that we now have.... course I wonder about most cultures.. hence my believe that their is no greatest.. only greats.
basically yahQuote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
It's a shame when a civilization which thrives on hypocrisy,greed and arrogance is considered " great ".
UK in the 19th century. First nation to have an industrial revolution, and ruled 1/3 of the world...until we gave it all back.
Chinese people lasted over 5000 years and they are still here, many nations rise and fall, while theres still a basic Chinese premise over in Asia not to mention just about every person, Japanese, Korean etc, migrated from China so i pretty much in general terms, consider them pretty much the same. First to do alot of things, other people then improve on it..like the pizza >> We had meat pies then italian people changed it. And i still like meat pies more x_x; haha..
Yeah, Imperial China was pretty bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsunari 2000
In terms of power and control, it was probably the Romans.
I wasn't talking about Imperial China.I was referring to the hugely inflated sense of faith bordering on overblown nationalism that some people seem to place in their civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
I would agree. I mean, my love for America isn't based on faith. I love it based off of rational, provable facts. I hate how some people have faith in civilizations that clearly weren't exactly the pinnacle of human reason or ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsunari 2000
Well.. I doubt the US is at that "pinnacle". I doubt any nation/civ is truely at the pinnacle.
Easy way for me to say. Find a civ where everyone was happy, content, prosperous, blah..blah... and that I will call the greatest civ.
So in other words..none O_o
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionx
Pretty much :P
If you think about it all the civs mentioned have had some really really bad times and faults. Even at thier peaks.
If the US has already reached its peak.. we aren't ever going to be greatest. If our peak is on the horizon.. perhaps the potential will ride us through and we could rise up to the challenge that it is to be great.
However, that is just a hope. Any current country that is doing well and expanding.. blah... blah.. could ride out the potential. The US just has more(in my opinion) then others at this time. That does not mean we are there yet.. just that we could possibly have the possiblity to make it there.
And even then our history may come back to bite us, if it is an overall judgement.
Great will be great to different people.
Creating one perfect haven is a pipedream that i belive will never be realized. As you can tell by reading these very forums, ideas on how things are ran will always be different.
Some people may want a strict caste type system which puts them in power over others, while some will strive for equality. Some people will want more care from thier government, while some would like less gov't involvment.
government is man made, and for that, it will always be inperfect.
By this I simply mean that a perfect civilization would please 100% of the people, but I don't see that ever happening.
As this thread is for the greatest civilization, I would say that Elementry School has my vote :) We were all almost equel unless you smelled funny or ate weird things. Some of us even got away with mullets and cats cratches (*raises hand*) :) :p :p
Bipper
Exactly, which is why I have to believe that the less government, the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
America, having the most individual freedoms, is therefore the best civilization the world has seen thus far.
Hachifusa.. I still ain't sure of that. It is one of the "greats'. But meh... we have our pitfalls. and many of them. I am sure we have been matched when it comes to number of pitfalls.
We may be "best" in individual freedoms.. but that isn't all that a civ is(though it may be the most important. depends on how you view it).
Might be true.. cept a freind, Rob, ate weird things but was equal.. We liked him.. afterall who else could you catch eating AND LIKING the teacher's Hamsters' food. or their notebooks(this was 5th-6th grade btw).Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
"America, having the most individual freedoms, is therefore the best civilization the world has seen thus far."
but to what cost? the death of a child every 3 seconds is the price you pay for capatalism and you "freedom".
if america can be regarded as a civilisation then i would say that vietnam of the 60's and 70's was the greatest civilisation ever. stood up against the world's greatest super power (and japan and france) and gave them a right good hiding no matter what the cost. would not be bullied by america and instead fought against the US army and won. then went and ended the rule of the kymer rouge. no country has achieved a feat like that.
Oh, Cloud. Again we have to go through your incorrect apprasial of history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
- You support Vietnam, not on its fundamental basis (hint: it's people were in a communist regime) but because of the fact that it "stood up" to America. This isn't too different from the ad hominem idea (Speaker is immoral, therefore his argument is immoral). However, now it becomes this: America is arbitrarily evil, therefore any other country (even a country with less respect for human rights) is therefore good because it stood up to it. That's like claiming that Nazi Germany was good because it fought the USSR.
- America didn't fight North Vietnam. South Vietnam did. We were their allies, and we were fighting - get this - FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. Yeah, we pulled out in '73, because we realized that that war was beyond lame. The war itself didn't end until '75.
And, by the way, a country has achieved a feat as great as what Vietnam has achieved: Hitler managed to murder 11 million, bring Europe to its knees, and destroy the concept of freedom. You know what "Nazi" stands for? National Socialism.
So, taking your advice, it's a toss up. Either Nazi Germany or Vietnam. They are clearly the pinnacles of human civilization. (btw down with the u.s. lol)
i do support vietnam on it's communism.
but they stood up to the world's second greatest power. that is an amazing feat for any country especially of that one size. and vietnam was in the right. america had no right to be in that war. and to defeat it was the only right thing to do. it was a crime to invade. and it was justice to give the US army what it deserved for that. and for a country of that size and of that limited power to be showing america it's place in the world is why it deserves my respect.
america wasn't fighting for human rights. it was fighting communism for the sake of fighting communism.
and national socialism is not socialism or communism. it as right wing facism.
Uh, we were fighting against communism because its a slap in the face of human rights. Most western civilizations, including your own, recognize that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
no the way in which communism has been ran broke human rights. communism itself can have no impact upon them and can in fact strenghten them.
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
it makes all men equal. it gives no man any difference of power over another and so equality in rights is easier to enforce.
Do you support, then, Kim Jong Il's recent guidelines on a proper socialist haircut? It equalizes the playing field and makes all men equal by having the same hair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I actually support (China yes) what i believe in because there are reasons for it. I do not support USA for butting in and i do not believe that individual human rights as the most important thing for every nation. Some nations like the US, can afford and be fine with it, and its great. But for other countries who are weaker and has more people pressuring them, individualism will cripple the country and will not help them achieve their goals. Similiar things happened during the Great Depression also is happening to countries trying to get back on their feet and i do not feel individual rights are good for that country until their country is stronger. Thats my opinion feel free to disagree with it if you want.
One thing i just know, we all have different views, and thats fine.
EDIT: About the hair thing, i would say its to strengthen their army and promote them to work as a team. I do in fact support that for the betterment of their army and people, becuase they are not as strong as the US and need that unification.
hachifusa there is difference between equal rights and absolute cloned equality.
You just said you support North Vietnam's communism. That is a product of communism. Enslave man literally and you'll enslave him spiritually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I love it when Americans believe the USA is the most "free" nation in the world. It is not the nation leaning farthest to the right economically, and socially I believe the Americans have less rights and "freedoms" than most of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
Didn't Stalin and the Japaneese during WW2 kill more?..Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
Then during the gunpowder age when the UK went power crazy and said they were superior to all races and started subjecting the whole world..
lets forget about that though.LEts talk about america and vietnam. ..
Bah everyone knows Vietnam was a wrong war. I mean haven't you realised that the whole freaking country just went crazy during that time period. Thats the first time anything like thats ever happened.
to the poster above lol..........I mean seriously I can speak out against busha dn the FBI might come to my house and giv eme a hard time. But I won't just disappear. Heck dude. Did you know n most parts of Europe if your in too much debt you goto a debtors jail... WE don't do that in the US of A
I love it when Europeans think that Americans are crazy because we have unknown freedoms such as "freedom of press".Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
I can challenge you the same damn way everytime: give me a freer society than the US and I will move there. (P.S. It doesn't exist.) I'm not some damn mindless nationalist (unlike most Europeans).
Since my obsession with Greek mythology, I would have to say the Greeks. it was a civilization that impacted many aspects of the Modern Western Civilization. From the Greeks many ideas and concepts were formed.
I'd agree. Greece is one of the greatest civilizations to have graced the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan
we have freedom of the press here.
and my point about vietnam was purely the overcoming of massive adversity.
in what way is america freer than my country?
First off: the BBC. You don't have total freedom of press.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Second: if you see America as evil, than Vietnam is good, but just because it attempted that doesn't make it the best civilization in the world. I love America('s ideals), but not becuase we won the war of independence.
America has more economic freedoms than the rest of the world, which is a socialized slave pen, more or less. On civil liberties, it is more or less the same.
the US does have more civil liberties than the UK, but let's try not to turn this into a fight over which country is "better".
In all fairness, this is bound to come up on any thread that asks people to rate the greatest civilization ever.
this is true.
The US certainly has some issues with civil liberties, with a recent example being the USA Patriot Act, but we also have more protected rights. Many say America is a very litigious country, but that's because we actually have the right to due process and legal recourse. Our press is open to the influences of corporate money, but we do have an explicitly free press that is not government-run. We're effectively protected from government censorship.
why does the bbc limit the freedom of the press? it's not even government ran.
i purely see vietnam as a civilisation that has overcame everything the world has thrown at it. a few chinese invasions, 3 mongol invasions, 2 french invasions, a japanese invasion, an american invasion then destroyed the khymer rouge. they say a travesty in cambodia and without the un asking them to do it, without being forced by internationl law, they won't over there and ended that tyranny and purging. and it is still independant and still has the same courage that has seen it through these times. that is what makes a country great.
america has no more economic freedoms than my country. neither does it have civil liberties, in fact a country which still executes it's citizens i would say it far from civil.
Dude, don't make us get back into the taxation, socialism debate again. You want to be into socialist regimes, fine, but don't try to claim that it's more "free".Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
you won't find a bigger opponent of capital punishment than me, but it a fact that the United States has more enumerated freedoms than Britain.
The Jews, and\or the Jewish civilization. I mean, look up any good idea in the last 3,000+ years, and it's bound to be a Jew's idea, or at least some goy's idea, that stole it from a Jew. And, really, Seinfeld rocks. :D
There are many anicent nations that really accomplished alot, the romans for instance had aquaducts, heated floors and many such things, the egyptions, the greeks are still remembered.
And just because America uses "free" in every sentance does not make it so, it may shock you but we all dont cower in corners hating freedom and being shut up by government. We do have free press, most of europe does. no ifs, no buts, we do. deal with it. The BBC is just one media that is linked to the government, even in america government tv is influced by the government, public media is free to write what it wants, thats why you see "Blair is a failure" on the paper every damn week. Also shockingly enough europe does not chew bones in a savage corner, we do have fundemental rights, I really want to know how you get these idea that America is the only andmost free of all, its not. thats arrogence. Anyway, back to the topic im going with 3 people, the ancient greeks, romans, and the Old Eqyption Kingdom.
I've always loved Genghis Khan, I'm going to say his Empire.
America has more economic freedoms, which is the uncontested fact. We are not a welfare state. "No ifs, no buts, we do. Deal with it".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuggly Blight
I would like to see proof of these facts.
Well, the fact that money isn't ripped from our hands to support a medical system, or that industries aren't at the mercy of the government profit-wise, (as they are in the UK). State intervention infringes on individual freedoms. The individual should not be forced to rely on some "parental" government in order to feed them. Not to mention state-run programs generally suck (do look at something socialized we do have here: our educational system) compared to individually-run businesses, which are more efficient and, ironically, better for the people. The taxes that are present in these countries are so much that they tax the wealthy a higher percentage than the common man (which is another one of those "slaps in the face" because the government is taking their money by force and funding it on things that the individual may not even have to use).
Edit: While I recognize we aren't yet Socialist America (thank God) I do have to concede that America's ideals and America's current situation doesn't always run the same course. I wasn't painting Europe as some medieval area, but quite frankly America is freer in general, and being freer, I stay here. I hate the usual catch-all phrase Europeans have for people who are pro-American: "Patriot", used as an insult. I love America because it is the best country in the world, and I would not love it as much nor stay here if other countries were to become freer. We have faults (our foreign policy is our biggest) but I'll be damned if I'm going to jump head-first into some altruist ideal that, unfortunately, the rest of western civilization (and the Democrats here) are trying to set up.
Im glad my money is ripped from my hands so everyone can have free healthcare whenever they need it. Just because yoru against nation health does not mean its a breech of freedom. My Grandad has Lung Cancer, he doesnt have to pay a penny, he can have treatment without finacial problems.
Edit: You really need to travel, there is a world outside.
At the expense of everyone else. My grandpa had surgery recently, too, and while we helped him a bit, he also paid insurance for it. I think that's far better. It's a breach in freedom because the entire people have to pay for your grandad. Why doesn't he pay for it?
Edit: lol more european insults
Just because you dont like it, most people dothats why we have it, its there for everyone if they need it or not, just because you dont like it does not make it evil.
I see your reasoning, and indeed, it's not a breach of freedom just because I arbitarily hate it. But it's my reasons for hating it. The whole basis of the American character (I am a Thomas Jefferson/Alexander Hamilton fanboy, holla) is that the government has no right to its citizens. It lets them free to live, and only steps in to protect individual rights. National health care is a nice safety net for (a) lazy people, (b) irresponsible people, and, least likely (c) people who could use a little help. However, it's done by ripping the money from everyone's hands. It makes people poorer. I'm a healthy, eighteen-year-old guy - I don't pay medical insurance. I could. I don't want to. It's my choice. Freedom is based off of choice. You're right in that the UK is arguably the next freest country (this is debatable) in terms of both civil and economic freedoms, but that welfare state is a bit too daunting. I'd rather stay in a country (in the meantime) that recognizes economic freedom a bit more, and isn't embarrased becuase that's considered "ultra-conservative" to the rest of the world. If freedom is conservative, then damn it, I'm one of them. Give me liberty or give me death.
This obession with "where freer then thou!" is pointless, how can you argue someone is better then the other or what they do makes them better? its arrogent, it works for us, to go on and say "Yes. but were more free!" Is really childish. There has been many great nations before, and and there will be in the future, they will consider themselves better, but its a perspective not a fact and to keep arguinga perspective as a fact is cringing.
As usual I link to http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html#Patriotism there Patriotism & Self Righteousness section is a intresting read thats applicable here.
Edit: I could argue, why have a police? give everyone a gun and if your killed in a burglary its yourown fault.
It is not pointless. Which one of us is being the mindless nationalist, again? I want to live where it's freer. It's not "arrogent". America is freer than the rest of the world - fact. I live here. I'm not saying that America is paradise, and stop painting me to be a god-damned mindless American. God, I HATE European arrogance.
Edit: I would argue that that is anarchy, and the police force is a legitimate function of government, because it's the protection of indvidual rights.
America is NOT freer then the rest of the world, thats not even a word.
free
adj. fre·er, fre·est
And yeah, it is. When I explained how, you just called me a damn patriot. Shall I explain it again?
never said patriot, dont make up my argument for me please I can do it myself, maybe you need to read posts? And Free is a word, Freer is not.
Damn close, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuggly Blight
And freer is a form of free. Check your dictionary. I mean this seriously: maybe it's only in American English. It's a proper word.
its not in any dictionary I checked, and a link to a site, OHHHH sue me.
Nah. That would be unethical. You're entitled to your own opinion. I just think you're mistaking actual rational conviction with mindless patriotism, and trying to turn the argument against me by implying that I would love America no matter what. That would piss off everyone (including most Americans). Believe it or not, people can like American ideals without being a nationalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuggly Blight
And the dictionary I checked had it. *shrug*
the last 5 I checked didnt, go figure.
Indeed. I've also read it in publications, so I've been under the impression it's a real word. "More free" does sound a bit cleaner, doesn't it?
yes. yes it does.
But, indeed, there are a lot of instances like that. Why, did you know that freer could also be a noun? It's not used very often, and I suppose that is because "liberator" does sound better. That crazy English language.
I thought I covered this:
No manmade society will ever be the greatest. Values are different - some value fredom - some value government support.
The greatest civilization is EARTH because it has multiple nations that are run differentley. When peoplce can huddle in thier small societies and live thier days the way they want, then i belive the world will be perfect.
I only belive that the lesser governments are governments that are not FOR THE PEOPLE.
This preatty agreeable?
Bipper
I think people just started using it and it must of been of been seen as a acceptable word to use. Although it would just be convient if they actually did say if it was Queens English or American English.
One person's right to live is another person's lack of the right to kill the person in question. The existence of rights makes the existence of some other rights impossible. All laws cause a decrease in civil rights and the only way to achieve freedom is to remove all laws and rights.
I wouldn't say that's true. I'm talking about political freedom, which is essentially an action not being forced. I would not say it is society that is taking away my "right to kill". It's the inalienable right of another man's life that I am hampering. I never had a right to infringe on another's rights (in this case, anti-muder laws aren't infringing on any right of murder, since that isn't a right: indeed, it's an "anti-right"). In that case, the government can have laws without infringing on my rights.
That's entirely possible. But I've read it in publications, and seen it in dictionaries, so I assume it's rather correct, at least, correct enough in social context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuggly Blight
Agreed, basic things like The law against murder is not a violition, its rather the opposit, it gives the right to not be killed, same as theft.
Freedom is like everything else; merley relative. If you live in a country where the government wipes your butt when you get off the loo, then it buys your mind some freedom as you have one less thing to worry about. However if you live in a contry with no laws your free to do anything - including die.
There are ups and downs - just like there used to be 50 states... rhetorically
Bipper
Just to throw it in there. Wanted to say that I read the article. I think that it is a bit too biased (I would not go to the point that the Statue of Liberty is now a "facade") but that foreigners should note the certain irony that a man like our current president has been "called to defend freedom" has also helped bring about the USA Patriot Act, which is a slap in the face at civil liberties. I wouldn't quite say that "the amount of self loving literature in American culture" is any sort of indication that America's population "feel bad about their country", because I rather like America. (Besides, talk about a stretch). However, we have our faults, and I don't think anyone is contesting that. Except for, maybe, the conservatives.
The article still annoys me, however, because I feel the same exact thing towards the author that the author does to America: I don't feel like s/he has exactly recognized the actual freedoms America has. We're on a downward spiral at the moment (perhaps forever) but we do currently have more freedoms than other country, so I stay here until the USA Socialist Act or the USA Fascist Act comes into play.
History has told us before, A nation can become large and great, create many wonders, some of the ancient nations had under floor heating, some even had plumbing but for all there advancements and power they have all fallen, the Roman Empire crossed the globe, the Old Eyption Kingdom was one of the most powerful nations of its day, the Greeks developed into one of the most civil of the day, even as recent as the British empire, as they say what goes up most come down.
We can't be doing so bad-- we havn't completley blown up this rock yet. I would look at us as being a global civilization now-- only not so civilized from what i gather...
Bipper
Every nation will have it's day.
The next world power will be China, then it'll be Malaysia (believe me).
Chinas already zipping up there, and its Chinas second turn, greedy!
the greatest civilisation will be the one that ends american power.
The one that does exactly the same thing as the Americas are doing now, except probably to a far greater degree? Oh, I know, you <3 the European powers. Gotta love the Belgian Congo!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
the country that ends america's place as a super power doesn't need to be based on the same fundamentals. it may not be the exact same thing. i hope it will be better.
The reason why the Romans got rid of hte JEws back then was because the Jews threated each other good. They treated symeritans horribly. And any person thatw asn't a Jew was called a Gental. BAsicly they wanted to help each other out. But they didn't want to help or contribute to other society's. I mean the Romans could've leveled Jerusalem when they first took it, but they didn't. HEck they connected the Jews to the outside world, but thye betrayed the Romans. Which is why most Jewish people are of european descent today.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomamar04
WEll yeah It'll be China and the USA. They'll be the two world Super Powers.. Yeah competition will be fierce.Economy wise. Military wise. Yes China does have the largest military int he world(I think its bigger than the USA's population.). With the USA though. When it comes to arsenal. There is no other country that can compete.
Carthage.Anyone remember Hannibal Barca ?
Carthage was a civilizaztion to be feared. I mean imagine elephants crossing hte battle lines.
Hannibal was a good general. A rival of Alexander The Great.
Thoguh Rome has contributed a lot to this world today. The way military's are formed and trained. I mean discipline is the main factor in any military today.
I swear, Cloud, you're just trying to troll someone into flaming you. I've never known anyone to have such an irrational hatred towards any country.
Hey ...Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
Do you play Rome:Total War by any chance ? :)
China is a lightweight economically. Its economy is 1/3 the size of Japan's. Because of that it stands no chance militarily against the US.
Anyways, I nuked a few countries as President Xeres of the Persians in Civilization III and I have control of all the world's oil reserves. Mwahahaha!
If you think China currently is a super power you gotta be kidding, its not even 1/5 of Japan's Economy which is of course lower than America's and their military is not even as strong as Japan's Defense team(not america). However i expect that to change in the next 10-15years-ish as long as peace is still there.
I still remember my uncle saying he saw an American warship when little..like all huge, and the Chinese gunboats which are like..what? Fishing boats with a tiny turret? >>; What are you smoking LB?
"I swear, Cloud, you're just trying to troll someone into flaming you. I've never known anyone to have such an irrational hatred towards any country." it's not irrational i have liosted countless times why i hate that country. and if you need to flame to argue then so be it.
Well, they're a superpower in the sense of population and growth. It's a fact* that China's birth rate is so high, they could start marching people into the Pacific, and they'd have a bridge of corpses reaching to California before they ran out.Quote:
Originally Posted by lionx
*not really
And we've shot down pretty much every reason you have except those regarding trade tarriffs and the like many times, and they've bounced right off your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
The NWO, Norwegian World Order, will be the greatest civilisation... soon...
Actually, I would say that Communist Russia could have been THE greatest civilisation ever, they COULD have made communism work, but they failed, miserably because of their 40% Military Spending leading up to the fall of the USSR, so it would have to either the Roman, Macedonian or British empires, all of them were the most influential in their heyday...
I think that the USSR can only win here depending on how you define "great".
I never said it achieved greatness, only that it had the awesome potential of a communist system, that done properly (ie. Had Stalin not screwed it up) would have worked.
I don't think communism can work whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primus Inter Pares
I mean, it didn't have a great track record even before it was called the USSR.
Before the Russian Revolution, it didn't have a track record, but as for Pre-WW2 the 5 year plans greatly improved the Russian economy, had it not been for the destruction of WW2 and Stalin, Russia could have and probably would have won the Cold War.
Yeah, but I don't think that any communist regime could last for very long. It kind of runs on human fuel, and enslave people long enough and they will probably fight back.
I'm saying is that they had dissent in the beginning, middle, and end. Stalin sort of helped bring about their destruction, but they would have faced destruction regardless. Perhaps they could have outsed American control (which, according to Cloud No. 9, makes them a potential utopia), but they would have faltered after awhile.
Communism is pretty lame all around.
No, communism is the only workable system in all reality, it does not work on enslaving people at all. You convince the people that they are working for their nation and that the hard workers have a chance at advancing, the thing Russia did wrong was to not promote hard working loyal communists to higher posts, purge out corruption and spend money on peaceful purposes instead of military.
Russia had a very good chance of becoming THE superpower, their mistake was the Cold War, had they built up their economies for ten years before moving to engage the West they probably would have won, if they had kept up with research and such they would be the only superpower here today. True Communism is based on a system with no central government, where people work and get fed with no real worries, the standard of living in Russia was very good during the cold war, there was no unemployment and no poverty, crime (apart from corruption) was limited, where as in the US there was a huge divide between the rich and the poor leading to resentment, which could eventually undermine the American system.
It's important to avoid debates about capitalism v. communism, considering (especially) that I am an advocate of lassiez-faire capitalism and find communism impractical, unethical, and not in tune with reality (or people), and that's not really what this thread is about.
Perhaps, however, the USSR could have won the Cold War, but the question one really must ask is, "What makes a civilization great?" I align it to the freedom of the individual, and I thought everyone else did, too (I'm wrong). For some, it's the technological and artistic achievements of a society. Or for some (I mean, for Cloud) it's whatever can topple America.
What makes the USSR so great?
I never said the USSR was great, it screwed up, majorly, that's why I said that the British, Roman and Macedonian empires were probably the greatest Civs ever, the British deserve more credit, they pioneered the industrial revolution, the Greeks deserve a mention as well as the birthplace of democracy.
(SPOILER)Hey, I'm a lassiez-faire Capitalist too, doesn't mean I can't say that communism has great potential...
I would rather contend that there were merely no reports of crime and unemployment. Actually no, there WAS no unemployment, because the unemployed died in short order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primus Inter Pares
Communism has killed over 100,000,000 people worldwide. I'm not eager to let it have another shot. Anyway, this thread isn't about that.
One Ancient Empire I am particularly fond of is the Persian Empire. You can't really argue with them, they were hardcore. It'd be pretty nifty to visit Persepolis.
In addition, I love the southern American stuff, Nahuatl cultures. The Aztecs were surprisingly advanced and powerful, and had a vast empire indeed. In addition, the artwork of the Aztecs, Incans, Mayans, Olmecs, Toltecs, and so forth are quite startlingly beautiful. I would dearly love to visit the ruins of Chan Chan.
And though not an Empire, I'd also love to visit Easter Island to see the Moai.
No lol I read this 1045 page long book called History Of Rome. Man it is great. Its one of my dad's books so i forget the author of the book. IT went into details of each period and the weapons used at hte time. Man The Romans evolved in warfare and everything everytime it entered a new era, Even into the beginning of the middle ages.(when they abandon britain.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsunari 2000
Well, it isn't a right, because your society isn't free enough on that aspect. Or are you saying people are born with natural rights? Rights are abstract things that the government grant you. Not something you have by nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
Uh, no. Government is nothing more than comprised of humans. The whole basis of our society is that we have unalienable rights. It doesn't matter how much a government tries to restrict them. They can with force, but even they can't touch some (freedom of thought, for instance).Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
Rights, by nature, are not favors.
really what is here is:
jrgen there are not inherent rights(like right to life).
Hachifusa There are inalienable rights(such as your right to your life).
Frankly nothing will probably be resolved since they are different philisophical views. Personally I am with Hachifusa here.. though I can see where jrgen comes from(or maybe... not sure).
You know i might seem like an ass for saying this but right to thought might be able to be taken away by torture and stuff....>_>; *shudder* thats freaky.
It's obvious that certain "rights" hold more sway than others...
China for longevity
Rome for power
Britain for size
And this is where the subjectivity enters, making it impossible to scientifically prove which country is the most free. Before someone grants you the right to do something, whatever action you are performing is just something you do, not something you have the right to do. And "the right to live" is apparently not something the USA believe in as there are death penalties in this country. Removing death penalty would grant people the right to live, but it would infringe on the state's right to kill people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primus Inter Pares
There is no such thing as "states' rights".
There are no valid rights outside of individual rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primus Inter Pares
That's essentially what I was saying.
I know that. :p
Wanted to make sure everyone did. :)
It depends on your culture, individualist cultures value the individual person and holds there rights important, while collectivist cultures value the group instead of the lone person and the actions taken are for the good of the group, the group taking priority, nether culture is incorrect but they each hold different values.
Individualist cultures hold a tangible essence as valuable - life, individual life. Collectivists hold a non-entity - an intangible, subjective, vague reference as valuable: the "whole," which, following that logic, justifies any and all persecution of the individual. It's nonsense by any standard which values life.
Eh? States have rights... how do they not have rights? Tha have the right to hold thier own voting procedures and right to property taxes as such... Am i just looking at the statemnet too broadly?Quote:
There is no such thing as "states' rights".
Bipper
He meant 'states' in the sense of governmental entities as a whole, not in the American sense of states.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Yes I did, and I still believe they have rights, granted by themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Gotchya milf - thanks for clearin that one up guys
I just read this thread from the start...
I must say im shocked...
Hachifusa...
You condem the public health system as taking money out of the pockets of the hard working. Exactly how rich are your parents? Consider what if you had a family, worked 50 hour weeks in an unskilled job because you were poor at school and your parents were too poor to afford tight ass education. You spend every cent feeding and clothing your children. then one of your kids gets pneumonia. You have the rent to pay or you'll all be on the street. Antibiotics that could help your child survive the possibly fatal and certainly common diagnosis are expensive.. What do you do without a public health system. Does the child have no right to these possibly lifesaving antibiotics so that Hachifusa's father can spend an extra $5000 a year on golf clubs???
I live in Australia and we have this wonderful concept called Medicare and bulk billing. If i get sick it costs me $2 to go see the doctor and possibly another $2 for some medicine. But do i see it as a barbaric system restricting the rights of individuals by ripping money from their pockets??? I think its more barbaric to cast the not so fortunate members of society such as yourself into the cold because of no fault of their own.
Did you know that America spends $399 Billion annualy on the miltary? I wonder how much that costs your dad? This is more than spent on Justice, Health, Education, Jobs and employment, housing assistance, international affairs, natural resources and the environment, science and space and economic development COMBINED
Australia and Canada may have higher taxes than America, but at least I can sleep at night.
FluroChoco, welcome. I'm afraid you're joining too late, and we've already had massive debates about capitalism v. communism/socialism, about the futility of a National Health System, and whatnot. To be honest, I've already answered these concerns all over the forums - please use the search function. It just gets really old saying it over and over again.
However, I will say two things:
One, my parents are hardly rich, I'm afraid. In fact, we're closer to poor than rich.
Second, just to sum up the argument, I am against socialized health care (indeed, all forms of socialism) due to both moral and practical reasons. For any specific concerns, you can find them over the board.
the nhs saved my life. nuff said.
communism can work if it is on a global scale otherwise it is prone to being isolated.
Communism could never work on a global scale. The smaller the group of people is, the bigger would the chance it would work be.
Yeah, I agree. The smaller the scale, the more likely it'd succeed (and the less dissention there would be).
communism on a small scale would work if the people were self dependant. if not they have tp trade out with their communist state and so need profit.
Communism is the most common from of friendship.
If my friends and I bought a bargain bucket from KFC for £9.99, and I pay £5 of it, I still wouldn't mind if I shared it between others, as long as I could tell them what to do with it :D
See, that's the thing. Communism can work exceptionally well in a commone. A few dozen people, maybe even a couple of hundred. I know I have a basically communist view of myself and my closest friends - what's mine is theirs. I love and trust them enough to be of the opinion they will make good use of it and will appreciate my effort.
As soon as the group becomes too large for there to be a realistic chance for you to know everyone, it falls to pieces. People will donate £10 to charity, they might help someone in the street who's been injured, but they're not going to devote a lifetime of work to people they don't even know and will never meet.
they aren't. but why shouldn't they?
I could answer that it's because it's immoral to force others to do it, but instead I'm going to say that that is a really weak argument, Cloud. Why shouldn't people do a lot of things - the question is properly, "Why should I?" rather than, "Why shouldn't I?"
Especially in politics.
because all men were created equal in the eyes of god and must be kept that way on his earth.
Do you think that people remain fundamentally equal? I mean, is the great Karl Marx on the same level as the evil George Washington? Is a hero the same as a drug dealer?
basicly yes. they are human after all.
That's true, but I meant in spirit. If that's the case, how can you hate someone or love somoene? You'd have to feel the same for everyone.
Don't you think your ideal is slightly conformist in nature?
there are degrees of equality. ou can be equal yet individual. we are all individual in spirit. all unique. with different talents and traits. some people are good and some are evil. but all are still human at the end of the day. and given that fact that should have absolute equal rights. rights that should not hinder another's.
and that is the problem with capitalism. you are allowed to hinder and exploit if you are big enough or powerful enough.
What do you mean by exploitation?
Last I checked, capitalism is the ideal that everyone is equal and has equal opportunity.
America's idea of equality is one of opportunity - nobody is denied happiness based on something they can't control, like sex or race. Cloud, it seems that your idea of equality is one of conformity - that everyone should be taken to the lowest common denominator. I'd highly suggest you read Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "Harrison Bergeron."
well laissez-faire capatlism mean no more min wage and so you are free to exploit the poorest in society. you can then put them in dangerous working conditions without any problem, you can produce very cheap but very bad food to the poorest too. and that is the problem we had in britain overa hundred years ago.
people workied down the pit and in the factories because they had no other choice. same with slum housing, deadly food and no sanitation.
it was an exploitation of the lower classes and was actively supported as government policy at the time as it has seen as good for the economy and so good for the people.
total wealth of a country is not important. it is how that wealth is distruted. look at the poorest in this world. 3 billion surviving on a dollar a day. we are a very rich world. but that richness is contained to us and lets the others starve.
there is a big difference from equality and conformiy. we can be different but equal.
How do you propose that while advocating slavery?
Heres the thing though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
One extreme cannot solve the problem of another extreme. You get what I'm saying. first of all before oyu talk trash about america. STudy US history. Then come back and start bashing. . I mean think aobut it The US is the only democracy were change just happens so slowly. Also the only country with a contitution that supports business as artificial humans.
i don't advocate slavery. i advocate the removal of the super rich. i advocate the removal of systems which keep africa starving. i advocate "socialist" policies which still allow freedom to earn and create.
What did they do to you? How do you propose to remove them - without force?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Turn away from America - blame Africa for that.Quote:
i advocate the removal of systems which keep africa starving.
Freedom is to capitalism what equality is to socialism. You can't find socialist policies that promote freedom. It's a contradiction; they don't exist.Quote:
i advocate "socialist" policies which still allow freedom to earn and create.
the one freedom that socialism prevents is greed.
you ncaj just tax the super rich heavily and with PAYE you don't need to use force.
why should i blame africa for illegitmate debt, subisides, tarrifs and lack of aid in emergencies?
Heres the problem with socialism...YOU CANNOT BETTER YOURSELF. If the country does bad theny ou feel it. In a capitalistic society. If the country goes bad its the people who didn't do what they had to do to save up in order to have enough to survive. Meaning those who did what they could will live better than those who didn't even work hard to earn more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Greed is a concept of a western society. Look at Japan... Greed doesn't go that far in there companies. Now look at America. A western society. Greed is rampant because it uses western values more than teh japaneese do.
wanting more than what you have right now isn't greed.
Including individuality, individual property rights, and individual choice... I see a trend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
That's their money. Do you propose the government should pull out a gun and rip it from their hands? Yeah, no force my ass.Quote:
you ncaj just tax the super rich heavily and with PAYE you don't need to use force.
OK, first three are products of a statist, socialist government, and you can rightly blame all foreign countries of that - it's not right to force them to give money that we haven't earned. Much the same way we can't force our own citizens to give to some theiving poor.Quote:
why should i blame africa for illegitmate debt, subisides, tarrifs and lack of aid in emergencies?
Blame Africa for their lack of desire to help themselves.
africa can't help itself under the current situation. it just cannot compete with the amount of tarriffs, debt and subsidies.
"Do you propose the government should pull out a gun and rip it from their hands?" no it's taken before it enters their bank account.
you can better yourself in a socialist society. take europe and my country. i can become rich, i can build my own business from the gound up like alan sugar or richard branson. or i cane sit on my ass like dole scum. there is choice and freedom in a socialist world.
greed is not a concept of western society it is it's product.
I hope your kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
that's how PAYE works.
You recognize that I was being symbolic, and that it doesn't matter when you take the money, it's that you're taking it - that's what makes it wrong?
tis the price you pay for services. think of it like pop corn. you buty a large pop corn. you can if you want eat the all pop corn. but you can leave some. but at the end of it you paid for the pop corn eaten or not. no refunds on half eaten pop corn. if the cinema was giving out pop corn at the start of the film it would be the same (the price would be hidden in the ticket price). *i had a conclusion to write hear but my mind went blank*
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.
Yeh, spose that would work, but then you would still have some rich ass in charge of it allQuote:
Originally Posted by goyabean
I still have no sympathy. Clearly, the man that renders the better service should get paid the best. I worked at Taco Bell for two years, and when I did I never cried because I didn't make a teaching salary. I was wrapping cheap tacos; a teacher is, well, teaching. I don't care that I will never make the same as a surgeon. The surgeon does have an advantage over me. I don't mind - I'm free to go as high as my mind can take me.Quote:
Originally Posted by FluroChoco
Why should it be everyone else's fault? It's no one's fault. That kid can go to charitable programs and receive help there. He shouldn't enslave the people to pay it all off for him.Quote:
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.
Pretty much, most Americans agree.Quote:
I am an Australian you foo. And i think Iraq sucks.
If all education was private, that means that everyone should be able to afford it. It's like food - you pay money for food, but if you can't afford the brand-names, you go off-brand. In such a society, any man can eventually reach the top. If you're born dirt-poor, you go to school and get a little better, and make a little money. If you go to a poorer school, hate the world, and do badly, then don't expect me to feel bad for you. You have equal opportunity: we aren't supporting you.Quote:
-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
Public health sounds great, but it's inefficent and technically unethical because it makes everyone around me pay for my health care. It is great for the dirt poor, but lowers the chances of everyone else. No, thanks.
Law and order are the proper form of government - agreed. Included in that is international relations, but like the government - the less the better. And, I noted the note - concurred.
Certian services I am technically against, but I'm not making a big deal of it until some of the worse evils are corrected. When random military spending for a constant half-war ends, and when public education becomes privatized, etc. - then I'll fight the water system.
Yeah. Helped form my opinions on political stuff. Great book - but I like 1984 more.Quote:
(you like animal farm, you know its about communism?)
You have to understand that that is one of the main reasons I am against communism. I know that the idea that everyone is the same appeals to you, but I think any system that subjects you to the group is evil. Period. The individual is sanctified in a free society.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
While I am all for capitalism, a lot of the things brought against it I completely agree with it. Capitalism can only work with a free society that recognizes the individual as supreme. Nothing else. That's why I tend to like America more than everywhere.
Another problem with those that hate capitalism - just because America has the most capitalistic economic system doesn't mean that every evil that comes from America is a product of it. Yes, the war sucks. Yes, most of America (except the creepy conservatives) hates the war. That isn't a product of freedom, I assure you. It is the product of a crazy president, a Congress that lacks integrity, a bunch of patriotic nonsense and that's about all.
Instead of pulling a you-know-who ("Capitalism invented acne!") please recognize that freedom doesn't create arbitrary problems. Yeah, the working conditions sucked in the nineteenth century. Establish a brutal socialist regime and tell me they would have improved dramatically.
Give me the economic freedoms that the conservatives love, give me the social freedoms that the liberals love, and you got what I think our country should be all about - freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by FluroChoco
I think the sole problem there would be that qualifications from different establishments would carry different weights. Unfortautely, there's nothing to stop someone very competent or with a lot of potential being rejected in favor of someone less able but who went to a more renowned college. However, that is as much a problem today as it would be under any other system, it's just that the 'off-brand' colleges would likely be viewed as significantly less competent compared to the 'standard' ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
Fixed ^^;Quote:
Give me the economic freedoms that the conservatives love, give me the social freedoms that the liberals love, and you got what I think our planet and species should be all about - freedom.
Well... let's put things in context. If a family is truly poor and can barely afford food, I don't think education is going to be a priority. In fact, history shows me the contrary, education isn't going to be a priority at all. In France, in the late 19th century, kids had little education because once they hit the age to work, they were sent to work, because that brought back money to the family, whereas a kid in school was a financial deadweight. Most students who decide to go to college know how heavy the financial burden is (even in public colleges, for that matter). Now, should 8 year old kids go through the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
You also compare schools to brands, so if you're poor, you can only go with the cheap ones, most likely of lesser quality, which means you get a lesser diploma, which means you get screened when about to enter good schools later on. I'll take the example of France, where, even though we all take the exact same exam after the last year of lycée, the opportunities after are heavily influenced by where you were taught, and at comparable results, you will go first compared to someone who was in a less reputable school.
Last, schools are expensive things. I was lucky enough that my parents could afford to put me in a private school, and I know that the school has some fun times making ends meet some times, even though the cost for the parents is far from negligible, and the fact that the school isn't trying to make profits (it's part of a catholic order). A huge part of the kids there had parents that were upper-middle class or higher.
Of course, all that is about early education (primary school, high-school to a certain extent), because, if at that point the kid can't get education (because the parents are poor, because they're uncaring/unwilling to teach or don't have the ability to do it (ex: crazy, uneducated...)), then you can't learn to read, write or reckon (the "three Rs") and then you are stuck at the bottom of the social ladder. These are necessary to have an equal chance later to prove your worth in higher school.
Personally, having been through both (private until I was 18, public after that), I'm pretty satisfied with the current situation (in France, mind you).
I understand the concerns, and I admit that education is one of the few aspects of libertarian policy where I think it still needs to be worked out. However, I think that a lot of the problems, like MILF said, is more a product of any system. Privitazation doesn't fix them, but it doesn't cause them, either.
Like I said, though, first I'll go for the bigger, more-obviously solved issues.
I don't claim it's perfect either. From what my wife is telling me about the US public system (and as far as I know, she knows more than me on that oen since, well, she comes from there), the problem isn't so much that it's public, it's the teacher unions (which is then about unions, which I admit is a tough issue and quite often causes more problems than good). In France, they also sometimes have knee-jerk reactions to needed reforms, but it doesn't sound as bad as in the US.
"What if I don't want the services?" it does exactly whatis says on the tin. the national insurance act offered insurance and cover from the cradle to the grave. you may not want them now. but you will need sick cover, your wife will need maternity pay, injury pay, nhs care, funeral support etc.
it works in the same way as an insurance. yes it's forced but that is in order to prevent all the bad stuff thwt would happen without it. the government stepped in to prevent folk going hungry when sick or injured. not being able to get education or dying from stupid diseases because they couldn't afford a doctor's appointment. the government also forces car insurance. but noone whines about that.
Insurance companies lobby the gov't to make car insurance mandatory. Few complain because few are opposed to it. And since this is a *gasp* democracy car insurance remains mandatory.
and i don't think many people in britian complain too much about cheap dentistry, prescriptions, eye care, and free health care.
Supply and demand. Lets face it. Their's less skilled workers than there are unskilled workers and janitor work is unskilled.Quote:
Originally Posted by goyabean
cloud we agree with oyu ont eh benefits but man if they were to do this crap in america. Man this country would be i n a world of crap lol.
anyway the Kush civilization were one of the first businessmen. They traded with Asia and resided in Ethiopia and southward.
why would it be a world of crap?
and the thing about the janitors. janitors are pretty damn essential. like most jobs. and as useful members of society rather than just being dole scum they should be respected as much as the next man.
for the country is due to the fact of the american mindset cloud.
lol our culture is just completely different.
If we were to make health care free and effective and pay doctors a lower amount. Then you get more malpractice.
Which happens to people without insurance today because people without insurance doesnt have an insurance company that can make that doctor richer than he is now.
but dentistry.. Thats affordable here in the states. I mean we are the ones with the nice teeth and the brits are the ones with the messed up teeth(there are a lot of people who really think that. though its untrue and a big generalization.)
Just because they get paid less than engineers doesn't make them dole scum. Nor are they treated as such in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
that was my point.
This drives me MAD, In chatrooms people take this as some kind of fact, insisiting we have rotten crocked teeth, We really don't. our teeth are the same as any nations (not including the third world without dentistry)Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
Blair is a snaggletooth.
A couple notes. First off I haven't seen a dentist since dad went to a the lower paying job(for 3-4 years if I recall right) because the dentist charged too much. It was more then a visit and treatment by our local medical group(doctors office)! Course we had no insurance at the time.. and the doctor was part of our community(the dentist office was in an other town) knew we were having financial difficulty so he did what he could to keep the expense of a visit and treatment as low as possible.
Anyways.. Just wanted to say that it depends on where you are at for dentist pricing.
As to public education.. I am sure you all know where I am standing on this issue. But lets just say I am for it.. but it does need some reforms! And I know how tough it is to fix it. We were asked to fix it in our Senior Government class(particually in how it should be financed). Right an essay to fix it. We had some interesting suggestions. It isn't easy. But if a bunch of senior highschoolers can come up with plausable plans that have a somewhat chance of working(teach said he may submit some of the ideas to the teachers union.. and the rest in the school knew about them.. so I guess that means some were fairly effective looking) I am sure "well educated" adults can find the answer.
Comunism-----------
I think Hachifusa(I hate trying to spell that out :rolleyes2) that you and I are looking at it differently. To me communism is exactly how you act with freinds(or at least how I act) where you share and help each other. I view communism as a communal where all share and help one another. This I would hope would bring people together. True if you go too far in either direction you screw it up beyond believe the balance(in my mind) is impossible to maintain in true communism. Which is why the gov I like best is the Capitalism/Socialism merger type deal. I like the idea of most of the programs the US has implemented... I just wish they would actually work. Be most efficent and the taxes would be less then now. We don't really need more money in... in fact we may have TOO much money in it. We just need to iron out the wrinkles and untie the knots.
If we left taxes as is.. we could have it so teachers got paid alot.(which I think they should... right know in my school they get so little that in order to easily make a living they have to have thier wife make the money. The single teachers live in bad houses. I mean 25k to 30k a year aint' bad for the fact that they get summer off and the fact that they are single. But we must keep in mind that they(if they do thier job well) tend to take courses at colleges and the like during the summer.. not to mention many I know do a lot of school work over summer time too. Thus they really do get chaffed in my mind. They work hard(if they do thier job right(imo)) and have to spend money on refresher/advancment courses.. should you not think they should get a bit more then a factory worker?
It's nice of your idea of communism, but frankly, it's ruined the moment one dissenter (such as I) doesn't want a part of it. The reason why it works between your friends is because you all like each other. People call me greedy - but I'd give up a hell of a lot to help my friends and family out, or anyone who I think deserves it. I am just against giving it to people who don't deserve it (idiots, liberals, conservatives, etc.). It's my money - I don't want to work for the skinheads down the street. Let them pay their own goddamn bills.
Another thing is just that even though that sounds good to you, it doesn't to everyone. So why force so many people against it? America didn't take the anti-communistic stance for no reason, remember. Not that it's good to be anti-communist because most people think so, but there are extremely valid reasons against it.
Join a commune, if you like, but don't force us all to join.
Well as I said if you didn't work(thus the people that wouldn't diserve it) something would happen. Simply my idea would to export them or to stop the support. I am all fine for not supporting those who refuse to help support themselves, etc...
There is a reason why I say it won't work in reality mainly cause "you can make some people happy some of the time but you can't make everyone happy all the time" or some such.
Communism, in order to work, requires everyone willing to work and help one another. once that is broken the system is broke. And due to human nature Communism is unlikely to work. If I had one wish I would wish for a nation(not the whole world) that would be composed of those willing and capable of living in a communal type government. I would also expresely wish that no one can mess with this nation and that it was self sufficent. Mainly cause it woudl by all likely hood be small and defensless.. and with the hatred towards communism some have(you don't like it for your reasons..that I understand. But something isn't evil/wrong just cause it is a different view(such as my MMORPG server type example)) the nation coudl be subject to attack or harm.
Just different views that is all they are. Neither one is inherently evil or wrong. It just so happens that more abusive rulers have used the communism ideals and name and twisted it to their use. Cause you see in a true communal you probably wouldn't have a true single leader.
Now the thing is you can have a democratic communism. It ain't the ecconomic system that is what causes the trouble. It is the ruling system. Stalin could have had a capitalistic economy if he so wished(I am sure it wouldn't be true laisefaire capitalism. .but niether are we) and still commited those attrocities due to the way the Government was ran. However, even that doesn't mean those type of ruling systems are wrong.. just that they are easily abused.
Glad to see we are finding a middle ground hachifusa
I still advocate public education and health. Do you believe in equal opportunity (that is everyone has an equal chance at life as the next person regardless of gender/race/heritage/parents/genetic reasons until they do something stupid like kill someone). Without public education and health equal opportunity does not exist. Taxes that fund these things are equal to everyone everywhere thus do not hinder equal opportunity.
As i have said and shown earlier the majority of your taxes go to military spending. If you wish to tackle the big issues first why not start with the biggest? Also
If this is true then why did Bush win a second term?Quote:
Yes, the war sucks. Yes, most of America (except the creepy conservatives) hates the war. That isn't a product of freedom, I assure you. It is the product of a crazy president, a Congress that lacks integrity, a bunch of patriotic nonsense and that's about all.