JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/09/i-literally-lol.html (114 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1189605519-580199  ben at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:58:39 +0000

I concur. That kicks ass.


jsid-1189608317-580204  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:45:17 +0000

I think that Gen Patreus was put in an impossible situation. Here's a guy bascially trying to do his job and he's got nutters saying he is a traitor on the one hand and jingoistic imperialists on the other.

This whole situation has been a fucking catastrophe for our military and both parties are to blame.


jsid-1189613856-580222  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:17:36 +0000

Mark:

jingoistic imperialists on the other.

Like who?

And when you get more specific, please, examples of how they were using jingo and! advocating imperialism, please.


jsid-1189618082-580235  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:28:02 +0000

That would be Bush, Cheney et al.

Specifically? Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was chauvinistic patriotism. Our current leadership advocates the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard a country's national interests. They define national interests as protection against terror attacks but the reality is we are protecting our financial interests in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial gain and the establishment of economic and/or political dominance over another nations. Even though Iraq is not a "colony" per se we do have control over the country's resources in pretty much the same way.


jsid-1189618215-580237  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:30:15 +0000

oops...that would be OUR national interest not "a country's"


jsid-1189620465-580242  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:07:45 +0000

Mark:

So then why is the Iraq war costing us money?


jsid-1189626652-580254  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:50:52 +0000

Well, it is certainly costing us money as taxpayers. But we are paying the contractors there who are making money? Contractors who all of the people currently working in the Bush administration will have jobs with when they leave office.

The same was true hundreds or even a thousand years ago when kings reaped the spoils of war while the regular citizne either died in the conflict for "freedom" or paid insane taxes to pay for the war.


jsid-1189628678-580262  ben at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:24:38 +0000

I think we need to get back to how funny that cartoon is, and how sad I am that I had to sell my EMP to pay the bills :(


jsid-1189629533-580263  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:38:53 +0000

Mark:

If it's costing us money, then explain to me how it's imperial.


jsid-1189631328-580268  DJ at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:08:48 +0000

Jedi, you put Mark in an impossible situation. Here's a guy trying to be a far-left nutjob and you're asking for facts regarding slogans on the one hand and an explanation of how those slogans constitute rational thought on the other. He's resorted to just looking them up in Wikipedia, wherein we find this little gem:

"Jingoism is chauvinistic patriotism, usually associated with a War Hawk political stance. In practice, it refers to sections of the general public who advocate the use of threats or of actual force against other countries in order to safeguard a country's national interests."

I am so totally, like, impressed, and stuff. Aren't you?


jsid-1189640783-580287  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:46:23 +0000

Actually, I started here

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Jingoism

and then went to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure that I gave Unix a clear and unbiased interpretation of what the defintion of jingoism was in context of Iraq. I really didn't want to be accused of distorting facts again. Oh, wait, I forgot. Wikipedia-isn't at that a tool of looney liberals as well? With those pesky facts regarding certain mistakes that have been in the last six years? Yeah...

Anyway, let's call it corporate Imperialism. We pay...this much is true...but do we, the average joe, actually reap the rewards of the spoils of war? I don't feel any safer, more free, or comforted by a large supply of oil.


jsid-1189643208-580291  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:26:48 +0000

Mark:

Wikipedia-isn't at that a tool of looney liberals as well?

You have to toss an insult, no matter the question?
Wikipedia is useful as a research tool.
Not as a canonical reference. Because of its setup, it is prone to being hijacked/sabotaged at any particular point.
I don't have to insult you for using it, I don't have to be insulting toward it.

In any event, I was leaving alone your definition of "jingoism", which you didn't really explain, but that would be easier to argue, since it was a made-up-word, and it's use is almost entirely negative.

What I thought would work far better is to discuss "imperialism". Much more accepted as to what that means.

let's call it corporate Imperialism.

It would appear that, having looked at the definition of "imperialism", that you're now trying to back away from that claim, but without admitting error. Why not call it "Bushy Bushy Bushwa"? Other than that wouldn't have the impact of "imperialism". (Cue Imperial March.)

We pay...this much is true.

The point of imperialism is to bring the spoils home. Not to ... spend money ... helping the conquered.

World War Two - that was a war of Imperialism. Germany wanted oil and metal reserves. As did Japan. They went to war to aquire both. Now, it was a very failed attempt, since both ended up losing far more than they gained - but the goals were obviously, outwardly, and without question gaining resources for their respective government. The plan was the oilfields of Southern Russia and the Dutch East Indies would be theirs for their exclusive use.

When has Bush said we're taking Iraqi oil production? Any member of his cabinet? When have we acquired Iraqi resources? When have we started shipping Saddam's Palaces home?

We're paying to rebuild their infrastructure. The "Corporate" misdeeds leftists tend to raise hell about is totally done by U.S. tax money. Want to raise hell about Halliburton? Well, they're not being paid by spoils of conquest! Thus... Not imperialism.

..but do we, the average joe, actually reap the rewards

Appeal to emotion, to avoid the argument. Not that it's totally without regard, but most of the "reaping of rewards" arguments don't hold up under investigation. That's why I asked you. That's why you should question your assumptions. Under your assumption of "imperialism", who, then, is "reaping the rewards?" And what rewards are they reaping?

I don't feel any safer, more free, or comforted by a large supply of oil.

Part of the real world problem that we face in dealing with Iraq, the Middle East, is that is a huge amount of oil is involved. The world runs on oil right now. There's a good chance that you probably consumed several gallons of it today.

"Cheap oil" is rather important to you and I right now. I would commend to you to go to Mexico City and try and drum up support for Ethanol. (Not really, you'd probably get killed.) Mexico's seen a quadrupling of corn meal costs as a result of the US subsidy (and diversion of corn into) ethanol. This is an example, for instance, of what would happen if oil weren't "Cheap".

This is why when Iraq invaded and took over Kuwait, there was a serious problem - Iraq was less than 2 days military action away from controlling roughly 50% of the oil production in the world.

If you don't feel safer, or "comforted", then well, you've really never pondered the effects of a massive oil price hike, and the ripple effects it would have on your life.

Many people fantasize about "what if". We'd stop using so much oil, things would be utopian... Well, not so much. Not in the short term. Nor is this the place for a massive tangent on "alternative energy" - let's stick to the non-imperial nature of this one.

See, we're are doing this in part for us. Sure. But we're also doing it for everybody else. We've got the military force to take oil by force - and we're not.

But think of this, Mark: When you think evil thoughts about Bush, and his "Big Oil" friends - think about how much more they could have made by allowing the middle east to destabilize, and merely selling the oil they have control over at 5x the current price.

Maybe the war isn't, really, about "enriching" a certain clique?


jsid-1189647763-580303  Markadelphia at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:42:43 +0000

My comment about Wikipedia was directed more at DJ's chiding, not at you. I apologize if you misunderstood.

"The point of imperialism is to bring the spoils home. Not to ... spend money ... helping the conquered."

If that is the case, what happened to the 9 billion dollars in our tax money that has gone missing? I am also not entirely convinced that we are "helping the Iraqis." Can you show me some hard core proof of where the money is going?

"who, then, is "reaping the rewards?" And what rewards are they reaping?"

Isn't it obvious? The defense contractors and companies like Haliburton, who interestingly has relocated their corporate headquarters to Dubai. They are getting paid insane amounts of money to maintain control over a very large oil reserve. The effects of this are making the region massively unstable, which is odd considering how unstable it is already.

Think of the outrage that Islamists feel about our economic relationship with Saudi Arabia. We buy oil form them. They in turn use their petrol dollars to invest in US securities with the promise from us that we will help them construct western style infrastructure around the Kingdom. Personally, I don't think of this as being completely bad but folks like bin Laden do. And they do in Iraq as well-seeing us doing the same thing there that we did in Saudi Arabia.

From their perspective it is Imperialism.


jsid-1189650349-580308  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:25:49 +0000

Mark:

If that is the case, what happened to the 9 billion dollars in our tax money that has gone missing?

But you just changed the subject entirely.

Remember, Imperialism. You started this topic.

If we're dropping tax dollars - as you're alleging, that would be the opposite of imperialism.

I am also not entirely convinced that we are "helping the Iraqis." Can you show me some hard core proof of where the money is going?

Yes, but that's another discussion. You're trying (whether you realise it or not) to keep the discussion on negatives. So you're changing the discussion. I'm working on one thing here - "imperialism".

They are getting paid insane amounts of money to maintain control over a very large oil reserve.

But. Are. They. Getting. Paid. With. Spoils. From. Iraq.?

If they're not...... Then....it's.. not.. imperialism!

From their perspective it is Imperialism.

*sigh*.
Mark, work with me here. Stop trying to "read" people. First of all, what you said is.. nonsensical. The problems that "Islamists" have with us and the Sauds bear no resemblance to anything you talked about.

Now, unless you aren an Islamist, the question isn't what they percieve it to be, it's whether it is. You, as a presumably non-Islamist, called it Imperialism.

Is it?


jsid-1189708682-580357  Sarah at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:38:02 +0000

Conley is not only funny, he's a heck of an artist. The line "tax my tuna" will live in infamy forever.


jsid-1189710679-580362  Markadelphia at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:11:19 +0000

Alright. Imperialism.

noun

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.


jsid-1189710718-580363  Markadelphia at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:11:58 +0000

Oops. I forgot to add this to the above post. Do we agree on the defintion of Imperialism?


jsid-1189713808-580376  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:03:28 +0000

Mark:

Not really.
But it would do for a start.
I'm glad you're now - after arguing for this long - trying to find out what the words you're using mean, but right now, it's pretty much a done deal here.

The U.S. has had imperial periods. To say otherwise would be silly. But we're not in one right now. We conquered Europe in 1944 and 1945, and didn't loot it. We instead, sent our capital and goods to assist with rebuilding their economies (even our enemies), under the idea that "a rising tide will lift all boats".

We're not seizing the oil in Iraq. You're complaining about the waste of tax money - Imperialism is about controlling wealth/resources elsewhere.

What have we done? We are doing, and largely have rebuilt the the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi government exists, and has authority over a good deal of the country. Yes, not totally, and we exert a large degree of control and possibly even a veto (it has yet to come up), but these are not hallmarks of imperial design.

Quite the opposite.

Now you're trying to force your previous viewpoint onto the current facts. Look at France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Grenada, Afghanistan, and tell me that those are imperial conquests.

Neither is Iraq. If you want to make that claim, you've got to start showing some loot, some oil deliveries from the "conquest".

But before you argue too much more (my point's been pretty well made and reinforced by you), go rent this:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0053084/?fr=c2M9MXxsbT01MDB8ZnQ9MXxrdz0xfGZiPXV8dHQ9MXxteD0yMHxodG1sPTF8c2l0ZT1kZnxxPXRoZSBtb3VzZSB0aGF0IHJvYXJlZHxubT0xfGNvPTF8cG49MA__;fc=1;ft=21


jsid-1189724927-580389  Markadelphia at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:08:47 +0000

True, we are not seizing oil in Iraq. But we are making money from it, right?

"Imperialism is about controlling wealth/resources elsewhere"

Yes, we are completely doing that....in Iraq and elsewhere. But I will give you this point...it's not exclusively an American thing. That's why I called it "Corporate Imperialism." Maybe it should be called "Mutli-National Imperialism."

Our government, along with like minded people in the region, seized the moment of 9-11 to regain control of one the world's wealthiest oil reserves-far more wealthy than is commonly known. They took this from equally greedy people in Europe, who had begun to assert itself in controlling the flow of money and oil. To be certain, American corporations are at the center of this.


jsid-1189727433-580394  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:50:33 +0000

Mark:

True, we are not seizing oil in Iraq. But we are making money from it, right?

No. As you've pointed out, it's costing us money.

That's why I called it "Corporate Imperialism." Maybe it should be called "Mutli-National Imperialism."

That's why you invented something that doesn't exist.

IOW: No matter how badly it's shown that your premise is flawed, you'll find a way to invent a new "word" to "mean the same thing", and remain unchanged, and unlearned.

Our government, along with like minded people in the region, seized the moment of 9-11 to regain control

Seized the moment.

This is why I really, really, really know better than to try and explain these things.

Nevermind the siege of Iraq. No, never happened. Nevermind the whole state of affairs.

BUSH BAD BUSH BAD BUSH BAD!

FIND WAY JUSTIFY! BAD BUSH!

Ok, Mark.

They took this from equally greedy people in Europe, who had begun to assert itself in controlling the flow of money and oil. To be certain, American corporations are at the center of this.

You forgot the pipeline across Afghanistan.


jsid-1189728233-580395  Kevin Baker at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:03:53 +0000

Yup. Mark has the Marxist "capitalism is evil" meme down, without a doubt.


jsid-1189779190-580430  Markadelphia at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:13:10 +0000

It's not BUSH BAD....it's BUSH's ACTIONS BAD. On a personal level, we share the same favorite baseball team and a love for exploration of the stars. I think he has done a good job of disrupting the financial networks of Al Qaeda and he started off doing the right thing in Afghanistan.

Look at it from another way, why do you suppose Bush has the stance he has on immigration? Hint: it's the same reason why we are in Iraq.


jsid-1189780582-580432  DJ at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:36:22 +0000

"Look at it from another way, why do you suppose Bush has the stance he has on immigration? Hint: it's the same reason why we are in Iraq."

Kevin has a point, and you quite obviously don't get it. You do have the "capitalism is evil" meme down pat.

George W. Bush became a multi-millionaire by working in the oil industry, and yet you consider him to be as dumb as a sack of air. Your world view simply must be correct, and so you utterly reject the plain evidence in front of you that it is not.

Mark, take off your BDS goggles and throw away your magic decoder ring.

You would have us believe that, as President, George W. Bush started a war in Iraq by fooling most of Congress into thinking it was necessary and desirable, while his real reason was so that he, as Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, could order those forces to issue contracts to his "friends" so they in turn could make money.

What you apparently really don't understand, is how easy it is to make big money, especially on the scale that Halliburton does, and that having a "friend" in the White House plays no part in it.

Doubt it, do you? Consider George Soros. He's a gozillionaire, worth for more than Halliburton is, and is an arch enemy of all things George W. Bush, and he became that way under Republican Presidents.

You continue to amaze me that you can believe such drivel, but you drive it home day after day. I'll bet you drive your friends and coworkers nuts.


jsid-1189783964-580441  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:32:44 +0000

Mark:

To continue what DJ was saying, you've demonstrated that internally, you apparently believe:

* Iraq never invaded Kuwait and stood poised to gain control over 75% of the Middle East oil reserves, and upwards of 90% of the current, operational wells and facilities.
(Which then has a problem with)
* The US military response to drive Iraq out did not end up (due to the "International Consensus") as a siege, sanctioned and ordered by the United Nations, but enforced by only 2 countries.
(Leading to the next problem)
* 8 years did not exist of the previous President authorizing military strikes as part of the above siege that (didn't) happen. The previous President didn't give repeated speech after speech talking about the threat that Iraq and it's leader posed.
* The U.N. weapons inspectors were not stymied regularly upon trying to inspect facilities as part of the cease fire.
* The U.N. did not, 18 times, authorize the use of force against Iraq for it's failures.
* George Bush acted unilaterally, without regard to the U.N., when he via U.N. mandate, with U.N. briefings, and with 40 countries, acted upon the 18th warning.


I'm tired, and it's not sinking in, so I'm pretty much giving up.

Mark, Saddam was a very dangerous man - to the Democrats - until Bush invaded, in which case they "could have dealt" with him.

Bush spent a year and a half doing the U.N. appeasement - which had 2 countries making multi-BILLIONS off of under-the-table payments by Iraq on the Security Council. (Imperialism?)

And after all of that, you still are harping about Halliburton! Halliburton!

(You know, the company that got all those no-bid contracts?)
(In Yugoslavia)
(Under Clinton)
(Because they're the only company set up to do that sort of logistics delivery)
(They do it so well, Michael Moore bought - lots - lots and lots and lots - of stock in them.) (Do as I Say (Not As I Do).. He's got IRS statements proving that. Read that.)

Because no matter how we try to get you to understand a point, you then slip away from that, and just.. modify what you said "Imperialism? Oh, I mean... CORPORATE IMPERIALISM".

(Nevermind how nonsensical that is.)

One to beam up.


jsid-1189797078-580473  Markadelphia at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:11:18 +0000

I don't think that Capitalism is any more or less evil than any other system. But it is unfair-in some cases tremendously unfair. DJ mentioned on here recently, in one of our long debates about health care, that you succeed in this country by working really hard. That is what is so great about America as opposed to any communist country because hard work pays off. Alright, cool. I'm down with that. But....

My father in law worked his ass off his whole life as a meat packer his whole life and made shit. The CEO of his company, one of the largest in the US, inherited his money from his father and made 100 times what my father in law made. So, while I can see benefit in having a capitalistic society, why couldn't my father in law and other line workers make more money and the CEO make less. I'm not saying a CEO should make nothing or everything should be even but don't you think he could "get by" on 2 million a year and my father in law could make 100k a year instead of 50K?
That's not Communism. That's paying someone more money based on the fact that he worked harder than the CEO.

Isn't THAT what America is all about? Well, it should be, anyway, and it's not.


jsid-1189797871-580474  Markadelphia at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:24:31 +0000

Unix,

Iraq did invade Kuwait. Saddam did so after he got the tacit approval from April Gillispie. Remember, he was our ally. Do you deny this? Then we decided that he was getting to big for his britches and wasn't playing ball anymore so he became our enemy.

He was a threat, yes, but not as much of a threat as he was made out to be. The First Gulf War more or less destroyed his military. He made pathetic attempts to rebuild it but couldn't because of the sanctions. I won't deny that he was a danger to our security but clearly not as much of a danger as Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria or even elements of our allies' cultures (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). I think these matters should have been dealth with first and then we could've dealt with Saddam. If we had adequately pasted Al Qaeda in Afghanistan instead of allowing mercenarys and warlords to do our job for us, perhaps Saddam would've thought twice about stepping out of line.

The fundemental difference between myself and you (as well as other here) is that I see that it's all about the money in the end. Really, that's it. It's not some big conspiracy or awful thing that some folks on the left might make it out to be...it's about who gets the most stuff in the end. Thus, the most power. That's why our country-any country, really-takes the actions that they do. It's not some altruistic desire for freedom to be spread to the lands of the oppressed. That's the propaganda.

We are protecting our interests or financial investements, as any country would do, to maintain economic stability.


jsid-1189797874-580475  Kevin Baker at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:24:34 +0000

"...why couldn't my father in law and other line workers make more money..."

THAT is the operative question. What the CEO made is immaterial.

This is the flaw in the thinking, Mark, that economics is a zero-sum game; that, in order for someone to have more, others must have less - and vice-versa.

It's not true. If your father-in-law made shit, he had the power to go elsewhere and do something else. He had the ability to risk what he had in the effort to do better. America is the place where you can do that, regardless of your birth, regardless of your place of origin, regardless of your religion, regardless of anything other than your abilities, your desire, and your luck. And yes, luck does somewhat play into it, but luck has often been defined as "being prepared to take advantage of opportunity."

Your father-in-law chose to remain a meat-packer. He had the option to do anything he wished that was within his capabilities. In socialist societies where everything is supposed to be more "fair" that choice is removed. It has to be, for in order to ensure "fairness" the economy must be centrally controlled.

Again, I strongly suggest that you read F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.


jsid-1189798416-580476  Markadelphia at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:33:36 +0000

"he had the power to go elsewhere and do something else"

No, he didn't. Because his father did the same thing, made shit, and couldn't afford an education. He, like many people in this country, were trapped by our system. He did what he could within his capabilities which were limited.

I am not advocating collectivism. I am advocating a society where if you work from 3am to 4pm seven days a week, you should be paid for it. If you are lazy or want to live of the government teat, you should get shit. The people that are wealthy in this country aren't always hard workers. If I were CEO of my father in law's company, I would feel guilty that I am out playing golf at my third vacation home while people were grinding themselves down at a factory in a town where that is the only work available.

I think you and I don't truly understand what it's like to be stuck in place like that. We have money. We have educations and choices. They don't.

This whole debate reminds me of that F Scott Fitzgerald quote:

"Rich people are different than poor people. They have more money."


jsid-1189798691-580477  Kevin Baker at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:38:11 +0000

"So, while I can see benefit in having a capitalistic society, why couldn't my father in law and other line workers make more money and the CEO make less.

--

"I am not advocating collectivism. I am advocating a society where if you work from 3am to 4pm seven days a week, you should be paid for it."


That first quote sounds a lot like "why couldn't we take money from the CEO and give it to the line workers?"

That's not what you meant? Because that sound's a lot like collectivism to me.

Are you saying he worked from 3am to 4pm seven days a week and didn't get paid for it? That he was a slave? We do have laws against that. I'm no fan of unions, but they did (and in a few cases may still) have their place.

You are uncommonly fond of hyperbole, as others have noted.

"If I were CEO of my father in law's company, I would feel guilty that I am out playing golf at my third vacation home while people were grinding themselves down at a factory in a town where that is the only work available."

I guess you'll never be a CEO. And America is a big country. There's lots of other places to go. I'm not saying what the CEO did with his money is morally right, but having the government force him to "share" is not the way to go. If the pay and working conditions were so bad, the workers should organize.


jsid-1189799278-580478  Markadelphia at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:47:58 +0000

He got paid. It was not proportionate to the work that he did as opposed to the CEO who was not, in fact, working at all but playing golf.


jsid-1189799570-580479  Markadelphia at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:52:50 +0000

Or how about this? If the CEO works the same amount of hours doing the same work as my father in law, then I could see him getting paid 5 million a year and my father in law getting 50K. Why?

Because it is the CEO's company, he is putting his heart, body, and soul into it. Perhaps he has toiled his whole life to make sure that his company works smoothly. Now that would be an equitable solution.


jsid-1189804997-580484  Kevin Baker at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:23:17 +0000

"If the CEO works the same amount of hours doing the same work as my father in law, then I could see him getting paid 5 million a year and my father in law getting 50K."

I can't. It's a waste of his time and talent (assuming he has any of the latter.)

The people I used to work for risked everything they had to start a business. They lived on beanie-weenies for a few years. They built the business up, hired people, paid them wages (some, not too much), and made a successful company. Just before they sold the company, I would not be at all surprised to find out that the two partners were each taking home 50X what the average shop floor guys were making. The shop guys worked 50-60 hour weeks. The bosses were in the office 30 hours a week, tops. They played golf or took trips a lot, too.

They EARNED IT. So the guy who owned the business your FiT worked at inherited his money.

SO WHAT?

Rule #1 of life: LIFE ISN'T FAIR.

Rule #1 of capitalism: NEITHER IS CAPITALISM. But you have the choice to try to get as much as you can.

Rule #1 of collectivism: "We can make life fair. You just have give up your ability to make choices."

Unfortunately that last one is a lie. It's just a power-grab.


jsid-1189807111-580488  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:58:31 +0000

I don't think that Capitalism is any more or less evil than any other system.

Then you are a fool.
Fool: (n) A person deficient in intellect; one who acts absurdly, or pursues a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom; one without judgment; a simpleton; a dolt.

If after all your education, you're unable to see what:
* Feudalism
* Mercantilism
* Communism/Socialism/Fascism
hath wrought, and judge them no better or worse, (at the same time typing on a computer system, produced and made affordable by capitialism, and stil not noting the irony) then you're a fool. You Cannot Reason.

(TBC)


jsid-1189807296-580489  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:01:36 +0000

(cont - dammit, Kevin, line break limits!)
But it is unfair-in some cases tremendously unfair.

Mark: Life is unfair.
But you want to see REAL unfair? Get under one of those OTHER "economic" systems. Of course, the body count on them is incredibly high, too - but still, no better or worse, right?

that you succeed in this country by working really hard.

You can succeed, if you work hard. But working hard doesn't mean you should succeed.

Do you go back to resturants that serve bad food? Even if they really worked hard to make it? Do you continue to patronize businesses that don't serve you well, even if they're really working hard?

So, while I can see benefit (No, you can't. You've already said that) in having a capitalistic society, why couldn't my father in law and other line workers make more money and the CEO make less.

Because that's what they agreed to do? The "CEO" offered them money, to do a job, and they accepted?

They were free to say "No!" They were free to start their own company. They were free to go be garbagemen (Because it's a highly paying job - not a lot of people want to do it)....

That's why. Because you're looking back at the CEO (and you don't know what he was making), and foolishly saying "Ah, you shouldn't make that much!".

Why didn't they start their own company? Surely it wouldn't cost too much.

And before you say "Yes it would!" - tell me why. Let's talk about liability. Insurance. Lawyers. FDA approval. Employees. You know, all those things the "CEO" was covering.

but don't you think he could "get by" on 2 million a year and my father in law could make 100k a year instead of 50K?

No. That Does Not Work.

That's not Communism. That's paying someone more money based on the fact that he worked harder than the CEO.

"From each according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs".

What in the Holy Hells Do You Think That Is Other Than Communism (Which isn't better or worse than Capitalism.)

Fool.
Fool.
Fool.

Look at Zimbabwe, Fool, where they're eating the family pets now, who instituted your policies. That's "why".

Because his father did the same thing, made shit, and couldn't afford an education. He, like many people in this country, were trapped by our system. He did what he could within his capabilities which were limited.

Dave Thomas was an orphan. Dropped out of High School, and as functionally illiterate for part of his life and started a multi-billion dollar business.

I am not advocating collectivism.

YES YOU ARE.

I am advocating a society where if you work from 3am to 4pm seven days a week, you should be paid for it.

By law, you must be paid for it! You're "advocating" a system that already exists

If you work from 3 AM to 4 PM 7 days a week that would be 91 hours. Which runs afoul of many labor laws. But assuming the case for most states - you're paid a minimum (today) of 7.25/hr.

Time and a half kicks in at 40 hours. Many states go to 2x if 80 hours is even legal.

Dropping your hypothetical to 65 (13x5) hours - that's $450 a week. Presuming they never gain skills to make them worth more than 7.25. The CEO apparently had the skills to run a company with lots of people working for him, producing a product. Deride that if you wish, but we already know that you are a fool.

Capitalism is the worst possible system - except for course, of all the others.

(Tag fixed)

Edited By Siteowner


jsid-1189807404-580490  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:03:24 +0000


Shit. Sorry, Kev, about that closing tag.

(Hey, it *did* come from cutting and pasting due to that line limit)


jsid-1189821006-580500  DJ at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:50:06 +0000

"He got paid. It was not proportionate to the work that he did as opposed to the CEO who was not, in fact, working at all but playing golf.

[...]

Or how about this? If the CEO works the same amount of hours doing the same work as my father in law, then I could see him getting paid 5 million a year and my father in law getting 50K. Why?"


Mark, you show remarkably little real understanding of how capitalism works, indeed how any business works. Here's a hint: the whole goddamned thing, at all levels, works according to the law of supply and demand. That is as true for CEO's as it is for janitors as it is for gasoline.

An individual person, a meatpacker for example, competes with everyone who: 1) is able to do the job; 2) is willing to do the job; 3) is agreeable to sell his labor for the price offered; and, 4) lives close enough to the job that he is able to commute to it, or is willing to relocate. It he asks more for his labor than someone, he won't be hired, someone else will be.

Now apply that reasoning.

For meatpackers, the rate is medium (yes, it is; 50K per year for a 40 hour week is a very respectable income). It is a skilled profession, and there is not a glut of people who meet the four requirements. The demand is medium and the supply is medium, and so the price is medium.

For burger flippers, the rate is very low. Indeed, it is artificially high due to laws which require it. Why so? Because it requires no skills that can't be taught in an hour, and there is an endless supply of teenagers who meet the four requirements. The demand is high, the supply is fucking huge, and so the price is low.

For CEO's, the rate is very high. Why so? Because to do it well requires considerable training in many professions, much experience, and truckloads of common sense. Those who hire CEO's, namely shareholders and boards of directors, must hire someone who will get it right, as the wrong choice can utterly wreck a business in short order. The demand is low but critical, the supply is really, really low, and so the price is high.

Kevin got it right, and so did Thomas Edison. Luck is where preparation meets opportunity. Most people don't recognize opportunity when they see it because it's dressed in overalls and looks like work.

I mean no disparagement of your father, but I suspect opportunities abounded for him as well as others. I can't, and won't, speculate why he didn't make use of them.

That observation comes from my own fortunate experience in knowing one man. He's 74 and retired now. In the 50's, he began as a swimming instructor. Then came the Marine Corp, then a counter job in an auto parts house. Next, he opened his own business, an equipment rental store. That's were I met him; as a mechanic working for him, it was the best job I ever had. Next, he raised and sold tropical fish wholesale, shipping them by air all over the country. Finally, he raised horses until he retired.

I learned all I could from him, especially by his example of adaptability, resourcefulness, and plain common sense. We are still good friends, as he is with my brothers (we all worked for him). He lives an hour away, and we see him several times a year.

Life is what you make of it, and capitalism is the only economic system that frees the human spirit to do something. Some people rise to the opportunity and some don't. It's lifted more millions of people out of misery than all other systems combined.


jsid-1189827608-580506  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:40:08 +0000

I guess the question I'd also ask you, Mark:

Under any other economic system devised - not a fantasy one - one that's been tried and tested how would your father-in-law been any better off?

Were the meatpackers the USSR well paid?
1934-45 Germany?
1920-43 Italy?
Medieval England/France/Italy?
Ancient Rome?

Name me a economic plan where your father-in-law would have done better.

Without resorting to magic/miracles.


jsid-1189866372-580517  DJ at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:26:12 +0000

Here is what H. L. Mencken said about capitalism:

"We owe to it almost everything that passes under the general name of civilization today. The extraordinary progress of the world since the Middle Ages has not been due to the mere expenditure of human energy, nor even to the flights of human genius, for men had worked hard since the remotest times, and some of them had been of surpassing intellect. No, it has been due to the accumulation of capital. That accumulation permitted labor to be organized economically and on a large scale, and thus greatly enhanced its productiveness."

See my comments about it below. He continues (as if I hadn't interrupted):

It provided the machinery that gradually diminished human drudgery, and liberated the spirit of the worker, who had formerly been almost indistinguishable from a mule. Most of all, it made possible a longer and better preparation for work, so that every art and handicraft greatly widened its scope and range, and multitudes of new and highly complicated crafts came in."

And what does he mean by "capital"? He states it plainly:

"And by capital I mean precisely what they [the Marxists] mean when they denounce it for foreign consumption -- that is, I mean a surplus accumulated, not in the pockets of workers, but in the pockets of persons who provide them with the means to work, and not under control of those who produce it, but under the control of those who have managed to collar it."

Capitalism exceeds where other schemes fail, because:

"It [i.e. "capital"] never could have been provided out of the hand-to-mouth income of a non-capitalist society."

When I was a freshman at university, I read a biography of Albert Einstein. Here was a man who, at a tender young age (or so it seems to me now), laid bare much of the workings of the universe. He was being interviewed by a reporter, who asked, "So, what is the most powerful force in the universe?" His answer was, "Compound interest."

The mechanism that Mencken describes in the quotes above is "compound work". I've described it in these pages before. It can be applied on anything from a microscopic scale (i.e. the scale of the work of one person) to that of the whole world (as Mencken did). The measure of how well a person subscribes to its principles and applies them is the net return, over his whole life, that he gets for his labor.

I know people who do not understand it in any way. Quite literally, they are construction workers who are paid, at the insistence of their employers, on Monday instead of Friday because, if they were paid on Friday, their entire paycheck, every payday, would be spent by Monday on beer and cigarettes. By being paid on Monday, they can at least pay the rent and buy some food on Monday, and whatever is left over is spent the following Friday and Saturday night. They never get ahead because they never get started.

Jedi has asked a very good question. I'm eagerly awaiting your answer.


jsid-1189870947-580520  Markadelphia at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:42:27 +0000

Kevin B, I agree with you on point 1 and 2.

Unix, I won't dispute with you the evils of past communist/socialist regimes. So all possible future ones will always be bad forever and ever until the end of time? And there is no disputing that? And even though capitalism ends up subjugating people in the same way it's OK because people have a choice?

I maintain that your version of "choice" is much different than the choices some of the people in my community have to face. In fact, they wouldn't consider it a choice at all. To answer your (neocon language manipulation framing) question, no, he would not have done any better in those systems. But that's like saying well, thank goodness he only threw up blood as opposed to having his arm severed.

Consider this:

In the late 1970s, the top one percent of the US population held 13 percent of the wealth; in 1995 it held 38 percent.

In 1998 the top 1 percent of the population owned 38 percent of the wealth, the top 5 percent owned over 60 percent

The top ten percent of the U.S. population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds.

What kind of a choice do common folk have going up against that? True, there are success stories but they are very few considering the awesome power and control the elite in this country have over money.

Here are some more current figures

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/wealth0506.pdf

Unix, when you have the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, of the United States saying things like:

"Amid this country's strong economic expansion, many Americans simply aren't feeling the benefits. Their increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising healthcare costs, among others."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0803/p03s03-usec.html

There is a graph at the end of this article that I strongly reccommend you look at to see how we stack up against other countries.

My point is centrally this: The Man keeps us down. Whether the man is a communist, socialist, capitalist, or dentist...the Man sucks you dry.


jsid-1189874182-580524  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:36:22 +0000

I won't dispute with you the evils of past communist/socialist regimes.
That shows the first signs of wisdom. Too bad you almost immediately negated that.

So all possible future ones will always be bad forever and ever until the end of time?
Yes, Mark.
Yes.
For all that anybody here holds holy, YES.
Those systems work against the human spirit. They work against human nature. More importantly: How many times will you advocate and support those systems, watch them fail in the exact same ways and insist that "Wait! We can make it fair!"

How much will it take, Mark? How can you possibly insist you're a thinking person when can look at every failure, and see "success", and every success and see failure?

How much? How many dead people at the hand of "Fairness" is enough for you?

And there is no disputing that?

Mark, the stage is yours. Dispute it. Show me how you can do better. (Than all the other people who insisted they could do better).

Show your work. Explain it.

Because right now your thinking is simply summed up as this:
"How do we get there?" "Well, first we do this, then a miracle occurs, then UTOPIA!". (Also known as the famous South Park Underpants Gnome theme. "Phase 1! Steal Pants, Phase 3! Profit!" "What's Phase 2?" "Phase 3 is Profit!" "Yeah yeah yeah, but what's Phase 2?" "Phase 3 is profit!")

And even though capitalism ends up subjugating people in the same way

You are lying. It. Does. Not. No matter how much you want to insist that it does, it doesn't. No, no matter how much you want it to be true, it doesn't. You didn't answer me - do you continue to go to resturants that fail you? Do you?

Show Me Where It "subjugates" people IN THE SAME WAY. Show me the piles of bodies. Bloody hell, Mark, look at the direction of the fences.

We fence to keep people out. Your preferred systems have to fence to keep people in.

And they're "The same" to you?
"Oh, well, you can't be expected to JUDGE better or worse"...
Yes, Mark, you can. And I can and should expect you to be able to rationally compare, and say "Holy Shit, that doesn't work." At least, if I'm to consider you to have any sense worth listening to. Instead, you say "Oh, well, next time we'll believe, and clap for the fairies, and they'll get their wings, and it'll work! Or we'll shoot more people!" Next time. Remoulding human nature is a bloody, bloody business. It's also very, very, very anti-freedom. So don't tell me you're at all interested in freedom, not when you're going to have bureaucrats deciding "how much" of your money you should be allowed to keep.

I maintain that your version of "choice" is much different than the choices some of the people in my community have to face.

You can maintain it all you want. After all, until you win and get your economic system, it's a free country.
But my version of "choice" is one that 99% of the rest of the world would crawl over broken glass to have the ability to get to.

To answer your (neocon language manipulation framing) question, no, he would not have done any better in those systems.

Mark, you really, really, really need to read SDB "cover to cover".
First, it's not a "neocon" anything. Second, Your infantile insistance on labelling things to avoid having to argue ideas aside, it's a very valid question.
You said: I don't think that Capitalism is any more or less evil than any other system. But it is unfair-in some cases tremendously unfair.
I merely asked you if any of the alternatives were more fair - surely they would have to be "more fair!". This is using your statement. This is allowing you to explain.
My question was an attempt to expose to you the failing in your own thought process by asking you to explain it. If capitalism is unfair, what would be more fair? According to you there's something?

But that's like saying well, thank goodness he only threw up blood as opposed to having his arm severed.

No, it's not. My question to you was presuming your previously stated belief. It exposed that indeed, you had not given this thought, indeed, you didn't know of something better, that all you wanted was to bitch, and wreck the system in favor of... well, something, (nevermind it's past track record). So when you wreck the system (since it's no better or worse than anything else), and it goes poorly, what then? You think the "People's Representatives" you've empowered to judge you, what you're "allowed" to have in the name of "fairness" are going to say "OK, we'll give up our power and prestige, and go back?" No, Mark, they'll say "Well, we need to work on that. We need to try harder to make things fair. They'll say exactly what you're saying right now. Ask the Russians how well that went. The Germans. The Italians. The Nicaraguans. The Cubans. The Zimbabwians. When they elected (or had installed) governments promising "fairness". Mark, you're a "useful idiot", because you can't see that once your path is followed, there's no going back. Not until total, utter, complete collapse. At least have the intellectual honesty to move to Zimbabwe first and try out "Fairness". Meat's only .30 a pound - by law! That's what's fair!. (You can't buy any, but that's beside the point. Go show them how to fix it!)

In the late 1970s, the top one percent of the US population held 13 percent of the wealth; in 1995 it held 38 percent.

Yes, yes, yes. At least come up with a new talking point.

Why is that? I know the answer, and it's directly at odds with where you're trying to go.

My point is centrally this: The Man keeps us down. Whether the man is a communist, socialist, capitalist, or dentist...the Man sucks you dry.

Then you have no point at all. (Unless of course, you work for Michael Moore, who refuses to use Union Labor, who had previous workers arrested for trespass when they tried to surprise him with interviews in his vein. Who buys Halliburton stock. Who sends his kids to a private school, while promoting public. Who lives in a multimilliondollar NY condo, while screaming that he lives in fear that Bush will have him arrested.)


jsid-1189882792-580529  Markadelphia at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:59:52 +0000

"For all that anybody here holds holy, YES."

Well, as long as your open minded about it:)

"You are lying."

No, I'm not lying. Quite obviously, I have experienced life in a different way than you have.

"Show me the piles of bodies"

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/06/there.html

Scroll down and view the three pictures. If you want to see more, I'd be happy to provide them. But I think you get my point.

"is one that 99% of the rest of the world would crawl over broken glass to have the ability to get to."

Blatanly untrue and, while full of conviction, it is only the conviction of patriotic vanity. I would submit that the people that come here are largely from countries that are so despicably awful that ours looks like acceptable to them.

I don't see massive amounts of immigrants coming from Sweden, Canada, Japan, Costa Rica, Germany, or any of the economically strong West African states. They come from places like Somalia, Congo, and Mexico whose governments are so corrupt that just about anything would be preferable.

What I find to be most troubling about what you have posted above is that, from my perspective, you are locked into a thought process that will not allow for improvements. So, maybe socialism and communism might not work here. I can see that. So, what we have now has to? And there's no alternative? Oh, and I am not allowed to suggest one because that would be Utopia?

No, I don't accept that because when we have economic leaders of our country (Paulson) telling us that the gap is getting wider, more people are working harder for less, and wealthy people in this country are asserting more control over our nation's wealth than ever before, I think that stinks.


jsid-1189885971-580531  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:52:51 +0000

Mark:

You're lying.

(It's not the first time, but I'm calling you on it.)

Quite obviously, I have experienced life in a different way than you have.

You've chosen to blame others for your choices.
Now show me the subjugation of people - equal to those of Feudalism, Mercantilsm, and Communism.
Or admit you were at the very least, mistaken. We've got somewhere on the order of 100M dead due to other systems. Not because of conflicts, but them killing their own people for failing to support the regime. You! You! Said that there was "no difference". So, prove that to me.

"Show me the piles of bodies"

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com...7/06/ there.html

Which has what to do with.. what? Other than you just insulting wildly?

Where's the profit in that? How is that linked to capitalism?

Scroll down and view the three pictures. If you want to see more, I'd be happy to provide them. But I think you get my point.

That you're... unable to synthasize any thought not told to you? That whole post is completely bogus (what you know about stem cells might - possibly - be less than you know about economics), but that's aside from the point.

I asked for the proof of subjugation. Equal to that of Communism, Fascism, Feudalism, and Mercantilism. Because you said there "was no difference.
Was. No. Difference. Your words, not mine. Either one. Same thing.

What I find to be most troubling about what you have posted above is that, from my perspective, you are locked into a thought process that will not allow for improvements.

*boggle*
*boggle*

*boggle*


So, maybe socialism and communism might not work here. I can see that.

Again, not telling the truth, because you do not see that. And where - where - have they ever worked? (And Mark? I can tell you where they have worked.)

Where, Mark? Show me the huge progress under some Communist/Fascist or Feudal system! According to you, they're exactly the same. (Nevermind in none of the above, we couldn't have this argument. Wait, sorry, I'm still pointing out how ludicrious you sound. Sorry.)

Oh, and I am not allowed to suggest one because that would be Utopia?

Mark. I have asked you to suggest one. I've begged you. Commanded you to. Tried via Rovian mind control to get you to. Tried to embed suggestions to you subliminally. Sent you a Western Union. Lighted a candle at a church for your brain.

And you have yet to suggest anything. You've complained about the current system, declared it "unfair" (while saying it's the same as all the others). But you have not laid out any alternative. Other than wishful fantasy. Yes, I'd like a Pony with my Free Health Care and Dinner every Night by Emeril. I don't think that building a command economy will bring me that. (But capitalism *might*.)

Please suggest alternatives. But an alternative includes thought about how it works. You can't presume to change human natures. You can't presume miracles, or magic.

As I said, show your work. No empty promises. Laid out, clear explainations of what you are going to do, what you expect others to do, and how they'll come to a equalibrium. Do that all you want.


jsid-1189890692-580533  Markadelphia at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:11:32 +0000

I started out writing and then I realized an article from a couple of years back that I read by a guy named Sir John Whitmore. I think it eloquently answers many of your questions in a much better way than I feel I could. I would be interested in what you think.

http://www.resurgence.org/2005/whitmore233.htm

In addition, I think you and I may have been talking about two different types of captilism. I agree with you that "good" captilalism has its merits: open, dynamic, entrepreneurial. I am all for that, no doubt. "Bad" capitalism, however, can be an oligarchic system sewn up for the rich or state run, which is worse. A country like China would be an example of this.

So, the question becomes, Unix, do you see America as good capitalism or bad capitalism? I see it as skewing more towards the bad side and getting worse everyday.

Consider this as well, from a column written about Prague residents in 2000.

"Many of the young Czechs I met this week say that their direct experience with communism and capitalism has taught them that the two systems have something in common: They both treat people as if they are less than fully human. Where communism saw them only as potential producers, capitalism sees them only as potential consumers; where communism starved their beautiful capital, capitalism has overfed it, turning Prague into a Velvet Revolution theme park."


jsid-1189891962-580536  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:32:42 +0000

Mark:
I started out writing

How about just back up what you said.

You said that capitalism was "no better and no worse". Back. That. Up. Or. Retract. It. Mark, I'm not just picking on you. It's important if you're actually going to think. Did. What. You. Say. Make. Sense? As you sit in presumably an air conditioned house, serviced by reliable electricity, using a computer and likely a high-speed internet service, and claim that no, no, Communism delivers exactly the same thing, just look at: _____________. Fill in the blank.

As long as you run away from that assertation, you refuse to admit the fundamental weakness of your position. As long as you cling to that as a "fact", I've no choice but to call you a deliberate liar. You know there's nothing to back it up, but you won't say "Yeah, capitalism is far better than anything yet proposed and enacted."

I've asked you for proof of your assertation. You keep using platitudes.

A basic understanding of the evolutionary process should tell us that it is time to move on up to the next level, now the current system has become obsolete and the harm it is doing is intolerable for much of the world.

If this is what you're reading, I see your problem. (He obviously doesn't have any understanding of the "evolutionary process" - it runs totally counter to what he's saying.)

All-consuming consumerism has brought the psycho-spiritual evolutionary journey of Western man and woman to a standstill, or even into regression, in a few decades.

Mark, been nice knowing you. Since I'm sure as a result, you'll be selling your computer, and going to live in a mud hut on a commune so you can continue your psycho-spiritual "evolutionary" journey. Happy Trails, Brother.

I think you and I may have been talking about two different types of captilism.

*sigh*

"Bad" capitalism, however, can be an oligarchic system sewn up for the rich or state run, which is worse. A country like China would be an example of this.

A "Country such as China" is exactly what you're telling us will take us in a more fair direction. With someone overseeing and making sure things are "fair". Which means, again, you're in contradiction with... yourself.


jsid-1189893307-580538  LabRat at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:55:07 +0000

A basic understanding of the evolutionary process should tell us that it is time to move on up to the next level, now the current system has become obsolete and the harm it is doing is intolerable for much of the world.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!


jsid-1189893776-580539  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:02:56 +0000

Much anger.. in this one called LabRat.

mmmm.
Much. Anger.


jsid-1189901872-580544  Markadelphia at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:17:52 +0000

Well, I thought I did back up what I said. I offered as proof the Prague citizens who weren't happy with either system-a human example of how each system is no better or worse than the other. I sent you a link which had such salient points as:

" if you believe that Soviet communism was worse than capitalism in every way, just ask rural Russian workers today, or the many victims of recent crime in Moscow. "

How about Russia? Communism was replaced the free market....and the mob. Great.

"Unscrupulous Western businesses promote the pointless acquisition of excess, of the frivolous, of over-priced branded goods manufactured in far-away places by children working punitive hours in shocking conditions for a pittance."

China anyone?

"capitalism does work - for half the world: the rich half."

"We have a world in which 40,000 people die every day for lack of basic needs although surplus exists; our habitat and countless species are being destroyed at an alarming rate by commercial exploitation; wars are fought over the desire to control natural resources."

You asked for a body count similar to Communism. There it is. I accept the evil that was Stalin and Mao. Do you accept this supposition above or not?

"The illusion of progress, the numbing and dumbing of human development, and the diminishing of the human spirit have been foisted on us, and especially on our children, by the priests and profits of capitalism."

Yep. So true.

"To secure a market, poorer countries are compelled to sell their natural resources abroad too cheaply, and those that toil to harvest them go hungry, while comparable growers in the rich countries receive government subsidies. These are nothing less than crimes perpetrated by the arrogant upon the ignorant and innocent. Political and corporate leaders, along with the silent majority by whose apathy their actions are condoned, suffer from a blend of myopia and denial of epidemic proportions."

I couldn't have said it better myself and that's why I didn't.

"WHAT WE NEED is an economy that is in service to people; that enables all six and a half billion of us to exchange goods and services to the equitable benefit of all. Under capitalism, ordinary people are in service to the economy, subservient to it or even expendable. "

" the new socio-economic order will be designed neither by one visionary nor by a team of social engineers; nor will it be adopted as a finished product."

Basically your asking me to define a system to replace capitalism that is still in its neo-natal stage. I can't do that. I have some good ideas on what I'd like to see in this new system. I have listed them throughout several of my posts. You have rejected all of them as "Utopian" and thus flawed. Or as totalitarian because, apparently I didn't get the memo on how "eqaulity", which is supposed to be a cornerstone American value, is also a path to evil and destruction. Well, fine. That's your opinion. And obviously others here as well. But think of this quote from the end of Whitmore's piece:

"It takes courage to step out of the line - more than most can muster. So they don their suit and tie and serve the system, but they glance more often out of the window."

These are the people that I would champion and so should YOU if you truly believe in the power of the invidual. After all, captilism is a "system", right? Isn't it in some intrinsic way a form of COLLECTIVE thought or belief?

Based on the fact that all of you here seem to have the same mindest about it, the answer would be yes.


jsid-1189901987-580545  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:19:47 +0000

LabRat is a biologist with deep knowledge of the evolutionary process.

And is not one to suffer idiots gladly.


jsid-1189908145-580551  Russell at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:02:25 +0000

In the late 1970s, the top one percent of the US population held 13 percent of the wealth; in 1995 it held 38 percent.

Should anyone mention the Pareto principle that drives this?

I mean, quoting from Wikipedia, "Mathematically, where something is shared among a sufficiently large set of participants, there will always be a number k between 50 and 100 such that k% is taken by (100 ? k)% of the participants; however, k may vary from 50 in the case of equal distribution to nearly 100 in the case of a tiny number of participants taking almost all of the resources. " works well when they are correct, which, in this case, they are.

But would that just muddy the waters more, confounding more than expounding?


jsid-1189908261-580552  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:04:21 +0000

Mark:

Well, I thought I did back up what I said.

No, you didn't. You offered an opinion piece. You pointed to someone else who said "Capitalism is bad". But he at least said In simple relativistic terms, it works better than communism by most standards.

I offered as proof [What he declares to be] the Prague citizens who weren't happy with either system-a human example of how each system is no better or worse than the other.

It's an unsupported assertion. I've known Czechs who would slap him for that assertation. It proves nothing. Other than he can claim that somebody... somewhere... agrees with him. Oh, well, silly us! (If I posted an article, that claimed that Iraq was behind 9/11, would that make it so? Would that make the source reliable? Or would you immediately reject everything that you couldn't verify in that linked article?)

Which gets right back to the fact that what you choose to support your arguments aren't actually intellectually rigorous.

I sent you a link which had such salient points as:

Alleged points. Alleged. Unsupported. Just declared to be so.

" if you believe that Soviet communism was worse than capitalism in every way, just ask rural Russian workers today, or the many victims of recent crime in Moscow. "

Ok, let's ask them. Let's also compare crime rates before and after the USSR fell. Not the official rates, they're not honest under the USSR - but if you go back and read contemporary argument, you see some incredible hints. Like the police in Russia not allowed to not be at least in groups of two. Because criminals had been killing cops to get their guns. See, I know that. You don't know how it was under Communism. You're just going to take a demagogue's word, without verification. The USSR, alone, killed in the neighborhood of 20 Million of their own citizens. Show me where "capitalist" societies are killing their own people. I've pointed that out several times. Show me the multimillion bodycount. Not any bodycount you can find that and say "that one!" That's yours!

How about Russia? Communism was replaced the free market....and the mob. Great.

Which is an indictment of said free market how? You think the entire Mob structure popped up in place, that quickly, with the 30, 40, 50 year old bosses? Seriously? You don't understand that the Mob was there the whole time?

"We have a world in which 40,000 people die every day for lack of basic needs although surplus exists

Which is almost (By my lights, LabRat might disagree) as idiotically ignorant as his "evolution" comparison.
40k people die everyday. Where? Rwanda? Mark, they're killed by "their" government. The Ethiopian Famine? Caused by the Ethiopian government, starving "Rebels".
Sure, people die, despite there being "surpluses." Almost in every case - because of the actions of a government. Which you want to give more power to, over you and I. The governments that won't let them buy the surpluses that are available.

Where are 40k a day dying? That's a worthless figure. You just citing someone who says something unsupported that you like is not "evidence". (The cases I'm aware of, they're dying as a result of your "enlightened, non-capitalist" systems.) That's not a knock against capitalism, it's quite the opposite. It's a drive-by-slander, blaming the evils of non-capitalism on capitalism!

wars are fought over the desire to control natural resources."

This may be the only, only thing he gets right in that article. Funny thing, the capitalist societies do this much less, since they'd prefer to just buy them. Make up your mind. Is buying things bad? Or fighting for them worse?

You asked for a body count similar to Communism. There it is. I accept the evil that was Stalin and Mao. Do you accept this supposition above or not?

No, Mark. Because that's counting the small Stalins and Maos. How in the bloody hell is it capitalism's fault that millions are starving in Zimbabwe? How is it capitalism's fault that Venezuela has nothing on store shelves anymore? How it is capitalism's fault? How is it capitalism's fault that millions are dying and starving in Darfur and Rwanda? Those are the 40k a day. Notice none of them have any bloody thing to do with capitalism.

"WHAT WE NEED is an economy that is in service to people; that enables all six and a half billion of us to exchange goods and services to the equitable benefit of all. Under capitalism, ordinary people are in service to the economy, subservient to it or even expendable. "

Right.

Well, I wish for all the money in the world, and to be irrestitable to women, and to be able to fly!

See, I can wish on stars/genies/pet rocks, as well.

Mark, the fact that you can't see that as absolutely no sort of "proof" at all, well, it just sums up why there's no chance of talking reasonably with you. You've said there's no difference. Well, then, move to Zimbabwe. (Remember, you won't want to criticize that government - but no better or worse, right?

have some good ideas on what I'd like to see in this new system. I have listed them throughout several of my posts. You have rejected all of them as "Utopian" and thus flawed.

No, Mark. You've listed wishlists. Fantasies. "Gee, wouldn't it be swell if we all had flying cars and could take 1 pill and fix anything and we could play video games all day, Wally?" "Sure would Beav, that would be swell." And you can't see why that's not a realistic policy plan. All of your "arguments" end up boiling back to emotional pleas "Is that fair?!" "Shouldn't he make more?!" "Why should this happen!". They're not solutions on how to fix them.

Maybe that's why I get so fed up. Mark, I spend my days (and getting paid for) my ability to fix problems. Not wish they were fixed. Not reflect on how cool it would be if there weren't any problems. Not to bitch "Dammit! There are all these problems!". But to solve them. So when I argue with people, I have to convince them I'm right. I have to show hard proof. Admit sometimes that maybe hard proof isn't there. Look at things from their point of view. Take their interests into account. Sometimes reject it and tell them why. Sometimes have to get someone else to give me a valuation on which interest is more important.

so should YOU if you truly believe in the power of the individual.

I do Mark. I do. They can do whatever they want. If they're staying in the "ratrace", then... they must not want out too damn much. But under my system - they can always drop out. Under yours - they'll be shot. Or starved. Or worked to death. That's how it's been every time it's been tried. Every Time, Mark. 100%. Perfect Score. 10 for 10. Batting 1000. But yours will be different. Just... Cause! We .. Wish! If you clap! You can save Tinkerbell! Clap! CLAP! CLAP, DAMMIT, MARK! CLAP!


jsid-1189910311-580553  LabRat at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:38:31 +0000

I wish I could say this in letters forty feet tall and on fire:

EVOLUTION IS NOT TELEOLOGICAL.

Let's do it again in simpler words!

EVOLUTION DOES NOT HAVE ANY ULTIMATE GOALS.

Another way!

THERE IS NO IDEAL STATE EVOLUTION IS CONVERGING TOWARD.

Let's try a refinement for your unique perspective!

EVOLUTION DOES NOT HAVE ANY GODDAMN THING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH HUMAN NOTIONS OF MORALITY, NO REALLY, NOT A SINGLE THING, IT HAD BEEN GOING ON BILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE WE CAME ALONG AND CAME UP WITH ANY SUCH NOTIONS.

"Intolerable harm to the world"? Did you really mean to put that in the same zip code as "basic understanding of evolutionary processes"? Thanks to one of the single most successful innovations by any life form, THE VAST MAJORITY OF OTHER LIFE ON THE PLANET OF THE TIME DIED! Oxygen is an incredibly toxic gas if you don't have some vital biochemical innovations on board. When cyanobacteria came up with a neat new way to fix carbon and started dumping oxygen as a byproduct, it was as if an alien life form here started producing sarin gas as a byproduct of BREATHING. Virtually all of the biological diversity at the time was either wiped out or was forced to retreat to places oxygen doesn't reach and the oxygen-tolerant can't live, like the "black smokers" deep in the ocean. We're all descendants of a handful of "biological terrorists", except they weren't, they were just life.

Tell you what. Try walking up to a chemist or a physicist and telling that person that a basic understanding of atomic theory indicates that the ultimate purpose of all atoms is to be uranium. It's just about as damned stupid, it should make for a reaction as entertaining as mine if they don't just pour coffee on you and walk away.


jsid-1189910520-580554  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:42:00 +0000

See, LabRat, there you go.

Standard, conservative close-minded anti-evolution mindset.

:)


jsid-1189910629-580555  pdb at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:43:49 +0000

LabRat:

Damn, that was just beautiful.

*sniff* Now I'm all misty-eyed.


jsid-1189910656-580556  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:44:16 +0000

Seriously, LR, great post and points.


jsid-1189915433-580558  LabRat at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 04:03:53 +0000

Actually, now that I'm not wiping froth off my monitor anymore, it could explain a lot about the worldview conflict at hand.

If you think of the "ideal" system- the one that produced life on earth, in all its diversity and richness- as guided by a top-down process that has a goal set for everything (or maybe just humans), then that sounds a lot more like a version of socialism that somehow produced wild success than anything.

ACTUAL evolution is a lot more like the world's most cutthroat capitalist proposition. No rules except "succeed or go extinct".


jsid-1189947905-580562  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:05:05 +0000

THERE'S a Quote-of-the-Day!


jsid-1189951064-580567  Markadelphia at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:57:44 +0000

Unix, I base a lot of my thinking on talking to people. On pretty much every Saturday during the school year, I work at a Russian school here in Minneapolis. I have for the last year. They all tell me the same thing. Capitialism...Communism...different boss...same story. These are people who lived throug Stalin and now have Putin aka Mob. They see suffering here, in a land they thought to be and oasis in the desert. Meet the new boss...same as the old boss....

So, sorry if I dissapointed you and didn't write a 30 page thesis on why Communism and Capitalsim are equally bad. I could examine country after country and the history of our own country. Somehow you would explain away the suffering. I would cite authors who have done years of research whom you would dismiss as socialists or communists.

In the end, given your mindset, do you think I would convince you?


jsid-1189954250-580569  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:50:50 +0000

Mark:

That's because they don't have capitalism. They have, in fact, simply exchanged bosses in the old criminal system. I once worked with an emigre from Belaurus. He and his family came here to get away from the crap going on the old Soviet Union. He was educated as an engineer, but to make money he ran a "movie theater" - a DVD player and a large CRT television that he scrimped and saved for and bought on the black market. He would get pirate DVDs from that same black market - which existed under Communism, mind you - and charge admission for people to come into his (very small, state-provided) apartment to watch them.

Apparently he was making too much money and he would not "share" it with the mob. So they shot him and stole his video equipment. I've seen the scar. Under the communist government, he could have been imprisoned.

He knew if he wanted to get ahead, he had to go somewhere that opportunity actually existed, so he managed (with great difficulty) to emigrate here with his wife and child. Here's a guy with a university education, who doesn't speak English well, who came to work as a wireman for just over minimum wage. He worked with us for a while, and went to school at night. He then got a job as a designer for another firm, got his engineering license, and the last I heard he was a lead engineer in charge of a large apartment building project in San Diego. He's not making chicken-feed now, nor does he live in a tiny apartment. Nor does he risk getting shot by the mob if he wants to run a side business. (Of course, the FBI could arrest him and throw him in jail for charging people to watch DVDs in his home, so I guess communism and capitalism really are "equally bad" after all!)


jsid-1189955554-580571  DJ at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:12:34 +0000

"
In the end, given your mindset, do you think I would convince you?"


Well, I don't.

Mark, your M. O. is, more or less, to: 1) ignore what doesn't support your thesis; 2) quote out of context what doesn't support your thesis such that it appears to; 3) make up stuff to support your thesis; 4) quote others to try to explain what you cannot explain yourself; and, 5) try to change the subject to slither away from answering even the simplest, most straightforwardly asked question.

No, that's not going to convince anyone who thinks of anything.

"Unix, I won't dispute with you the evils of past communist/socialist regimes. So all possible future ones will always be bad forever and ever until the end of time? And there is no disputing that?"

In the space of two sentences, you contradicted yourself rather thoroughly, and espoused the notion that communism/socialism would really be OK if only we would do it again, only harder! (What's that called, again?)

"So, sorry if I dissapointed you and didn't write a 30 page thesis on why Communism and Capitalsim are equally bad."

Mark, he didn't ask you for a 30 page thesis. He asked you, over and over and over and over and over, for a simple answer to a simple question, the answer being in support of an assertion you made. Now if you believe the assertion is really true and have thought about it carefully to come to that conclusion, then providing such an answer ought to be easy, and simple, and it ought to come from your own brain, in your own words.

You simply won't do it. You hem and haw, and obfuscate and cringe, and try and try and try to make it look like you answered him, but you haven't.

You try and try and try to get people to think that you know what you're talking about, that you're right, but what you simply refuse to understand is that you're not going to convince any thinking person of anything by such methods.

You claimed in the past that you teach your students to think critically. Teach thyself, teacher. Thou needest it greatly.


jsid-1189956019-580573  DJ at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:20:19 +0000

Kevin, where I last worked we had an mechanical engineer who emigrated from Belarus. It was really difficult to understand his thick accent, but he was a classically trained, mathematically oriented, very soundly educated man.

He left Belarus because all he could do was (in his words, mind you): 1) what he was told; 2) where he was told to do it; 3) when he was told to do it; or, 4) do something a whole lot less pleasant, for a whole lot less food, in a cold, cold forest in Siberia. He said the motto was, "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."

His continual story, when asked, was how amazing it was to be able to walk out of his house, which he owned, drive in his car, which he owned, down to a convenience store, walk in, select something, take it to the counter, pay for it with money that he earned at a job in a profession that he chose, and have the clerk behind the counter smile at him and wish him a nice day.


jsid-1189959703-580577  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:21:43 +0000

Mark:

You also can't cite socialist success stories. I can. (I won't now, because you'll cite them totally out of context, and without understanding why they were successes)

You in fact, can't cite sources. No, pointing to a opinion piece is not evidence. It can be part of your opinion. But you're wholesale accepting what people - in some cases, proven, deliberate liars - are telling you, without critical assessement.

OK, everybody, duck and cover.

A-bomb time.

Mark:

I want you to _carefully_ consider this:

Under capitalism, the #1 health care issue for those "impoverished" is obesity. Too fat. Too many calories per day.

Mark, the definition of "poverty" has, until capitalism changed it, been unable to afford food.

Now, we've changed poverty from "starving to death" to "not having a health care plan".

It's changed from "Starving to death" to "Having complications from years and years of excessive eating".

Since according to you, everything's the same, explain to me, via your capitalist-run ISP, via your capitalist-produced computer, $DIETY help you if you're using an inexpensive firewall/router/wireless, or a environmental-raping cellphone, via your non-sustainable keyboard, why no other system can require the redefinition of the group of people lacking.


jsid-1189963894-580587  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:31:34 +0000

This is like watching a slow-motion trainwreck.

I can't tear my eyes away!


jsid-1189993919-580627  geekWithA.45 at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:51:59 +0000

Sidebar:
---------
$DIETY

I. Love. It.
---------


jsid-1190045198-580659  DJ at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:06:38 +0000

Take it even further, Jedi.

The feddle gubmint determines who lives "in poverty" by comparing their income to a threshhold. Anyone who's income is below the threshhold is, by definition, living "in poverty".

There are two really wrong aspects to this:

1) This comparison ignores what the person owns. A person who owns a bank account with a balance of five million dollars, a house worth half a mil, two cars worth 75K, and all the furnishings and such therein, all without debt, is "in poverty" if he has no income, even though he doesn't need income.

2) This comparison does not take into account any assistance the person receives from the gubmint.

Now, consider the stats that result from the gubmint's test. The feddle gubmint spends about six hundred billion dollars per year in the form of payments to individuals. The number of people who, per the gubmint's comparison, live in poverty is about 37 million. There are about 3.2 people per family. Now, do the arithmetic: the feddle gubmint provides, directly to individuals, enough to give each of those "impoverished" families, in round numbers, fifty two thousand dollars per year. That's enough to put them, if the gubmint's handouts were counted as income, squarely in the middle of the middle class.

But, that wouldn't gather any votes, would it?


jsid-1190051748-580674  Markadelphia at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:55:48 +0000

It's that I hem and haw or can't do the things you guys ask..it comes to one simple thing: You can change an idea and you can't change a belief.

Unix, Lab, Kevin, DJ...you all have a belief system. Deeply ingrained in that belief system is that all forms of socialism/communism will fail. Capitalism is the best answer there is. It is the answer. Period. You have set your mind on a path from which there is no going back.

I, on the other hand, have some ideas. These can be changed easily to fit the changing times. Some of those ideas could be bad or wrong. None of yours can be, right?

From my view, at the end of the day, there is a chance that perhaps all of you are right. A small chance, but it is still a chance nonetheless. From your view, there is no possible way I could be right so any idea I come up with or theory I test that doesn't fit within you canon, is wrong. I attempted to answer some of Unix's questions. He didn't like the answers or the way I responded but it didn't matter anyway because was there every really any chance I would change anyone's mind?


jsid-1190055134-580682  DJ at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:52:14 +0000

"Deeply ingrained in that belief system is that all forms of socialism/communism will fail. Capitalism is the best answer there is. It is the answer. Period. You have set your mind on a path from which there is no going back."

No, we have stated that capitalism is the best that anyone has come up with in the entire recorded history of mankind. We have elaborated on why we think that is true.

"I, on the other hand, have some ideas. These can be changed easily to fit the changing times. Some of those ideas could be bad or wrong."

And you have been asked, over and over and over and over, to tell us what they are, in detail, and to justify your answer. You simply won't do it. You are simply, yet again, spouting bullshit to avoid answering a question that you don't like the answer to.

"From my view, at the end of the day, there is a chance that perhaps all of you are right. A small chance, but it is still a chance nonetheless."

Gee, thanks!

"From your view, there is no possible way I could be right so any idea I come up with or theory I test that doesn't fit within you canon, is wrong."

Bullshit again. You are being asked for your answer precisely so we can evaluate it and see whether or not we think it is wrong.

Mark, this is the clearest example of hypocrisy on your part that you have yet demonstrated. You accuse us of jumping to a conclusion. It is manifestly obvious that we are doing just the opposite. You, however, jump to a conclusion by your accusation. You are guilty of precisely what you wrongly accuse us of, and you state elsewhere that you are really opposed to hypocrisy.

"I attempted to answer some of Unix's questions."

He keeps asking you the question he wants you to answer because you keep not answering it. You're obfuscating and cringing yet again.

"He didn't like the answers or the way I responded but it didn't matter anyway because was there every really any chance I would change anyone's mind?"

It doesn't matter whether you change anyone's mind or not. It doesn't matter whether or not there is any chance you would or could. If it did, then there would be no point to having any discussion anytime, anywhere, now would it?

Jedi hasn't asked you to change anyone's mind. He has asked you, over and over and over and over, to explain what you think is better than capitalism, has worked better than capitalism, and to justify your explanation in detail without quibbling.

Why don't you just cut the bullshit and answer his question?

Or, just cut the bullshit and admit that you can't?

Here's something to tide you over while you stew about it. Which do you think makes us think worse of you: 1) that you have backed yourself into a corner and will not gracefully back out; or 2) that you think we don't know it and you can fool us about it?


jsid-1190059307-580688  LabRat at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:01:47 +0000

You're right. We have belief systems. It starts from a series of accepted premises and builds logically from there. Realistically, I probably have several beliefs that are less logical and based more in a morass of experience and emotion, but when I'm arguing the way I do it is an active attempt to strip away the dim reasons and replace them with ones that flow logically. That is, in fact, a purpose of arguing with someone whose mind I have absolutely no expectation of changing. (The other purpose is the benefit of anyone watching who may not have made up their mind yet.)

For example, my belief structure in capitalism would look something like this:

1)Human nature is not perfectable; given opportunities for gain by destructive means, a certain percentage of people in a society will take advantage, scaling directly with the risk/reward ratio. Some people will always behave in some destructive ways and some will always be constructive, but the majority is flexible.

2)Any societal system that is to persist must contain protections against "cheaters", or it will eventually collapse under the load. As with predators, some will always lean as much on any system available to avoid effort as is possible.

Those two basic premises lead to the question I must ask of any system: How is it reinforced against predators and cheaters? With capitalism, we know more or less what the threats are, and we have some strong measures against them. They aren't perfect, and sometimes people will get away with cheating the system and the people, or with using the system against the people. Based on historical example, the odds favor capitalist societies; there are several flavors available (more than just "good" and "bad", adjectives that tell us nothing useful about their structure), and some seem to work better than others. Most of the communist and socialist societies tried were subverted by predators for their own gain, and those that survived are currently groaning under ever-increasing loads of cheaters.

Changing my mind about capitalism is NOT an impossible task. It only requires answering the fundamental question: How can you create a socialist or communist system that, unlike the previous examples, can protect itself as effectively against predators and cheaters as the most successful capitalist societities? It's no good to just be better at it than Albania; you need to be better at it than the U.S. or Taiwan to be convincing.

THAT is what we want from you: lay out your premises, give us logical structures that stem from them, answer the questions that our premises and logic beg. The purpose of discussion as WE understand it is figuring out what those are for the involved parties; after that's done it only takes one or two exchanges to either come to an agreement or recognize a disagreement based on premises that can't be evaluated by this process. (A good example of the latter would be atheism vs. faith.)

It does us no good for you to tell us the ideal is an "economic system that serves the people" if you have no idea what that might be or how to create one. All that tells us is that you have "ideas" that exist unconnected to each other, with no organization and relationships that could make them useful.

By the way, I've seen Dogma too. Love that movie. But the ideas/beliefs dichotomy is a lot more real when you're talking about things that rely on faith, which is by definition at some point immune to rational analysis. Economics isn't religion, or at least it shouldn't be.


jsid-1190060756-580693  Russell at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:25:56 +0000

The purpose of discussion as WE understand it is figuring out what those are for the involved parties[...]

And oddly, espousing bromides doesn't fit my idea of a discussion.

I, for one, don't believe that capitalism is the best of all possible systems. However, I see it as being the best known system for letting people choose what they want and how much, and in what manner, are they willing to pay for it.

Socialism, as Marx so aptly put it, is just a stage on the way to communism. Communism runs a foul of basic human behavior. Wherever and whenever communism has been practiced it seeks to strip away all choices from the individual, not just from an economic standpoint, but for every human interaction.

So, no thanks.


jsid-1190062825-580702  Markadelphia at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:00:25 +0000

"How can you create a socialist or communist system that, unlike the previous examples, can protect itself as effectively against predators and cheaters as the most successful capitalist societities?"

First of all, I'd like to say that I enjoyed your post Lab because I thought it was quite honest and logically put forth. I will attempt to begin to answer the above question.

I say begin because when I write, I tend to think out loud. This has obviously irritated some who post here as it seems to be rife with hyperbole. I made up my mind a long time ago, though, that was ok, though, after reading Carl Jung. tThe mind of a human is generally at opposites. It is a fact of nature.

Here's the start of my answer, with more to follow as the thread goes on. I think you create such a society by making the central driving force in a person's life to be a better person...mentally, physically, spiritually, and emotionally. Our goal should be to reach within ourselves and evolve and reach outward and touch the stars. Explore everything should be our motto.

Right now, the central drive is to make money. People define themseleves by what they do, not who they are. It's an easy way to run a money based system. People work. They get paid. They use that money to survive. As you say, cheaters prosper in many different types of systems. If money is not the chief drive for people, where would the cheaters be? Money, in any system, makes us all slaves, really, and also distracts us from attaining more power.

Now, how do you do something like that? How do you shift someone's raison d'etre to something entirely different? Or a whole society's? Part of it starts in the church. Part of it starts at school. People have to understand that having a job is not about the money. Having a job is about achieving a degree of self worth, challenging yourself, and hopefully serving your community.

At this point, we have a culture that is more interested in sitting on their asses playing video games and eating Cheetos. They need to have a purpose. How do they get that purpose?

Let me think on it a awhile. More later....


jsid-1190063254-580704  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:07:34 +0000

You can change an idea and you can't change a belief.

Nonsense. You can change whatever you want.
But in order to convince me that my idea or my belief is wrong, you'll have to do more than tell me I'm wrong. I've changed many an idea, many a belief, admitted I'm wrong many a time.

But only when it was shown to be that I was wrong. Wrong. Most of my arguments in daily life, I'll disclaim what I know, where I'm coming from, because if one of them is wrong, my conclusion and method will also be wrong.

I can be totally "right", have the best idea in the world, and if the information I have is wrong - what then? It happens. Someone tells you something, and it turns out to be wrong. Information shifts. And there's nothing at all wrong with changing your mind and saying "Based on new information..."

But Mark, you're still plowing ahead. One day riding in a boat with my great-uncle through the Flats off the coast of Florida we ran aground in shallow water. As he churned into the mud, (engine at full speed) he said "Where did the channel go?" My father stood up, pointed behind us and said "BACK THERE!". You're still looking ahead for the channel, and you've run aground. All the way to dry land. The motor's burning up. When we tell you "IT'S BACK THERE" you say "Well, I believe otherwise, because I have an open mind," as the mud churns and flies.

Unix, Lab, Kevin, DJ...you all have a belief system. Deeply ingrained in that belief system is that all forms of socialism/communism will fail.
Really. I do? Haven't I told you twice that there are socialist success stories? Gee, would I do that if I was that deeply ingrained in what you're projecting on me?
Or, are you projecting incorrectly, as I keep telling you you're doing?

I, on the other hand, have some ideas.
Ah, of course. Of course. Your mind is open.

These can be changed easily to fit the changing times.
Oh, great! Wonderful! You can change your mind! (Except about capitalism being "no better or worse". Or what "imperialism" would look like. Or what the stereotype of "Liberal" demands.)

From your view, there is no possible way I could be right so any idea I come up with
Mark, any idea you "come up with" (ie, copy from somewhere else) so far has fit in a very narrow niche. That's been the same damn niche as a helluva lot of "failed ideas" (with an incredibly high bodycount and huge amounts of misery and evil.)
The definition of insanity has been described as doing the exact same thing and expecting a different result. Mark, you're doing the exact same thing and expecting a different result. Even your claims are the same!

or theory I test that doesn't fit within you canon, is wrong.
What theory? What? Where? The first theory you suggest will be the.. uh, first. And watch out, LR might take your head off for misusing the world "Theory"... Touchy, that one...

I attempted to answer some of Unix's questions. He didn't like the answers or the way I responded
Because you didn't answer the question.

You made statements. I asked you to explain them. You made more proclamations, and then refused to back them up. You never answered my questions.. I asked for proof - proof! (since you said that there wasn't a difference! Your statement! not mine!) - that capitalism is "as bad" as Fascism/Socialism/Communism. You "replied" with an opinion article ranting. That's it. That's the sum total of your "proof." Of your "great vision" and "alternative theories".

but it didn't matter anyway because was there every really any chance I would change anyone's mind?
Had you presented anything, possibly. Had you presented something that might have worked sure. (No, saying "is it fair" isn't a theory. Saying "What if we just took some of his money" isn't a economic plan. Saying "Hey, it's unfair that some people don't have everything.. Well, that's just par for the leftist course, but Not a plan.)
Every one of us replied to your stubborn insistence with new ideas. You're the only one insisting that the answer to 2+2 is Horse. And how dare we not consider that!

Walden Two
. Have you read it? At the very least, read that. It's a utopian world! With explanations! On. How. It. Could. Work!. I've read it! I'd be surprised if several others here haven't.

But Mark: You can't explain why, given the same technology, Socialism/Communism failed. Why there were mass starvations under every area ruled by a policy of "To each, according to his need". You keep throwing up red herrings. That Russians aren't happy here. That the Mob now exists. Nevermind it's worse in Russia. Nevermind the crime under the USSR was horrendous. Nevermind organized crime's been part of Russian life for 100 years.

You can't back up your assertation that capitalism is obviously, for the vast majority of people, a clear winner.
No, no, your mind is "open", and it's "not clear". Maybe. Maybe not. Hrm. It will require more thought.

Considering you're online on the internet, in the United States, taking advantage (and spitting upon most) of all the benefits thereof, it's ironic, Alanis Morrisette would never understand, and pitiful in a way. It's like watching anorexic girls wish they could be skinny, like the ethiopian refugees. Then go and throw up their strawberry smoothie.

Mark, you could look at this as a learning experience. Argue. Learn. Instead, you've decided to label us as "close minded" and "impossible to change their mind". Nevermind, you just.. stated.. platitudes. Bumper Sticker slogans, and got mad when we said "uh, exactly how is that going to work?"

Jonah Goldberg has a very good column in which he stresses that being excluded from the normal media and chattering classes has enhanced "conservative" thought. Because you won't get an echo chamber, because you've got to convince people, and as a result, the last 20-30 years has seen such a resurgence in "conservative" thought. If I find it, I'll link you to it, it's something to think about. (Since the obesity "epidemic" apparently didn't make you reconsider.)

But, Mark, don't leave angry, just leave. (Really, I kid). Before you leave this argument, take this thought with you:
All through this discussion, you've cited no proofs, no evidence, just insisted that I, and others, should "open our minds" and "believe" and "think there could be another way". Despite a total lack of suggestions about how to do it. How to convince people to play along. How to encourage the behavior that you will require, how to set up the self-reinforcing systems.

Which is exactly how the greatest tragedies unfolded. No proof, just contentions. And then when power was reached? The "convincing" was either facing people with starvation or simply the firing squad. Understand why we might be... concerned about the historical relevance and your historical illiteracy in the face of such... "Old, wait, New! New! This time! We'll get it right! ideas".


jsid-1190063420-580705  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:10:20 +0000

Here's the start of my answer, with more to follow as the thread goes on.

Mark, just go read Walden Two first.

Trust me. You're rehashing ideas and pathways that Skinner wrote about 50 years ago. Go read that, it'll give you a lot of ideas. Seriously. No lie, not kidding.

You'll like it.


jsid-1190063783-580707  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:16:23 +0000

Oh, and Mark, I'm sure you've read Harrison Bergeron before.

But just in case. A good read, as well. But get thee hence to the nearest bookstore, and get W2.


jsid-1190064690-580709  Kevin Baker at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:31:30 +0000

"I think you create such a society by making the central driving force in a person's life to be a better person...mentally, physically, spiritually, and emotionally. Our goal should be to reach within ourselves and evolve and reach outward and touch the stars."

--

"Now, how do you do something like that? How do you shift someone's raison d'etre to something entirely different? Or a whole society's?"


Oooh! Oooh! I know! I know!

YOU FORCE IT ON THEM.

It's the only way, Mark.

Read up on ancient Sparta and how they built their little warrior-cult. Or read up on how Rome got to be what it was at its height.

But western culture is based on something entirely different: the rights of individuals and their pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of their own, self-defined happiness - not some goal forced on them by someone else.

And that one cultural difference is responsible for more real human progress than the human race has seen in its entire history on the surface of this planet.

No thank you, Mark. I'm more than content to let the slackers eat Cheetos and play video games, as long as it leaves others free to pursue their own bliss making Cheetos and video games, and building private rocket ships, and writing software, and producing art, and studying physics, and....


jsid-1190065000-580711  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:36:40 +0000

*sigh*

Dammit.

Kevin, you just said that concisely. What I've been trying to get through to him with far more words.

Brilliant.

Yes. That's the point. Our system allows freedom. His cannot.

(Mark: If you want to design a system that does... well, be our guest. But consider it a strength that we'll argue against it, and it'll fix holes in it.)


jsid-1190065398-580712  Kevin Baker at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:43:18 +0000

Me?!?! CONCISE?!?!

SOMEBODY TELL ALGER!!!

(This will never happen again. I promise!)


jsid-1190069418-580717  Markadelphia at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:50:18 +0000

Unix, thanks for the recommendations. I will pick up Walden Two and you assume correctly. I am well versed in all matters Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five is one of my top three favorites (Catcher in The Rye and Stranger in A Strange Land being the other two).

Kevin, no one would be forced to do anything. What I'm talking about is figuring out what inspires AND motivates people...having them decide, not me. Of course there will be people that don't want to come along for the ride. It's their loss. Eventually, though, I think people would feel left out and it's possible you could see a migration, if you will, towards more noble causes...all driven by wanting to achieve a highrer sense of self worth.


jsid-1190069590-580718  LabRat at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:53:10 +0000

Now we're getting somewhere, at least for now.

I say begin because when I write, I tend to think out loud.

I can relate, more or less, if only because when I think about anything more complicated than "What do I want for lunch?" I'm writing in my head. I suppose the difference is that I mostly finish doing it in my head, THEN put it down.

Our goal should be to reach within ourselves and evolve and reach outward and touch the stars. Explore everything should be our motto.

I'm setting this one down here if only because it represents a point of agreement on premise, even though I expect we would or will have much to argue about where it leads.

Money, in any system, makes us all slaves, really, and also distracts us from attaining more power.

And now we depart entirely from agreement on a premise. What does money represent? It's an abstract concept representing a common rate of exchange for a variety of goods: basic resources (utilities, food, shelter), more advanced ones (access to sex, whether by the most straightforward arrangement or subtle), luxuries, and anything else that can be bought- including charities and intangibles like free time or relative solitude. In order to have free time, unless you're willing to sacrifice most of the other things on the list you need enough money to pay for things that would ordinarily take up time doing yourself, or enough money that you can afford to forgo working and take the time off instead. It also buys flexibility; once you can easily cover basics, then the other things that most want- like sex and companionship, which take time and money to acquire even though they depend mostly on intangible skills- then and only then do you have the freedom to innovate. A society that can afford to fund scientists to do things that in no way lead to an immediate perceptible goal.. is a RICH society. Likewise for a society that can preserve and protect a wild area instead of exploiting it for resources.

So by my lights, money is not a distraction from attaining more power because one of the many things money can be IS power.

Part of it starts in the church. Part of it starts at school. People have to understand that having a job is not about the money. Having a job is about achieving a degree of self worth, challenging yourself, and hopefully serving your community.

The interesting thing is that this IS how I was raised- and I suspect many, many other Americans as well. My parents always dictated that a good career wasn't one that made the most money, it was one that was personally satisfying, so that work wasn't drudgery.

I would submit that for most, money isn't really what they want. Those people that truly care for money tend to make scads of it, because they understand money and how to track it and manipulate it. Most want money as a means to an end- that end being nearly any purpose mundane, petty, mean, charitable, or noble.

I have more points, but I'm going to wait for wherever you go next before going into it... that and I've got chores begging to be done.


jsid-1190076265-580722  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:44:25 +0000

LabRat:

Now we're getting somewhere, at least for now.

Careful. I've said that several times. :)


jsid-1190078739-580727  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:25:39 +0000

"My parents always dictated that a good career wasn't one that made the most money, it was one that was personally satisfying, so that work wasn't drudgery."

Mine as well. Your long paragraph has so much to comment on....in a postive way, mind you....I must think and reflect overnight.


jsid-1190083564-580728  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:46:04 +0000

Mark:

Kevin, no one would be forced to do anything.

Get back to that later.

What I'm talking about is figuring out what inspires AND motivates people...having them decide, not me.

*headdesk*

But, apparently, not by observing what works well. What's done the best job of figuring out what inspires and motivates people. (Hint: That's the study largely known as: economics)

Mark: This is what is so infuriating about arguing with "open minded" people such as yourself - you're so "open minded" that facts don't matter, only what you want them to feel like (Remember your bald 100% certain claim that the FCC "once was powerful" and had been "shrunk". Notice you eventially (as predicted/observed by the .45-toting-Geek) just. dropped the subject. Never admitted that no, you were totally incorrect. No? I do.)

Of course there will be people that don't want to come along for the ride. It's their loss.

Riiiiiight.

No, Mark, I'm sure in your head, it would be that way. In the real world, it's never worked that way.

Do you understand that? That's part of the reason that I, and I think Kevin, and many others, distrust government. All sorts of claims have been made. Promises. The person who became the first FDA director promised - at hearings that lead to the FDA creation - that at no point would drugs be placed "behind the counter" and "restricted only by prescription".

That lasted under 15 years, before the prescription drug schedules were thought up, and added. But remember, originally they promised that it wouldn't!

So you come, and swear that it won't! It Won't!

But you've already proven to be very poor at picking sources and finding evidence. You can't provide backing now for your flat, reputation-on-the-line-declarations. (Remember, you've never provided backing for your view that Capitalism isn't better or worse, just that you're "keeping an open mind".)

So understand our skeptical nature.

(Ed. note: The gov. dept. referred to was the FCC, not the EPA. This post has been edited to correct the error.)

Edited By Siteowner


jsid-1190120968-580735  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:09:28 +0000

Ah, thanks.

Sorry. Had EPA on the mind recently.


jsid-1190128696-580742  DJ at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:18:16 +0000

"I think you create such a society by making the central driving force in a person's life to be a better person...mentally, physically, spiritually, and emotionally."

Yup, Kevin nailed it. You are a "utopian", a "zealous but impractical reformer of human society".

The key word there is "impractical". Your vision requires "making" something, that something being a fundmental change in why people behave as they do. It has two fundamental flaws: 1) it requires fundamentally changing human nature; and, 2) it depends for its success on everyone making said change.

Think not? Thank back (ah, the history thing again ...) on the Soviet Union, for example. All it took was the twisted paranoia of one man, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, to make moot any such utopian dreams of the great unwashed of his country. Consider Germany of 1933. All it took was the megalomaniacal rage of one man, Adolf Hitler, to unleash a world war that killed about 55 million people. Consider Iraq of late. All it took was the sadistic hunger for power of one man, Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti, to turn the dreams of a peaceful existence of millions into a living nightmare, and to threaten the economic stability of most of the world.

"People work. They get paid. They use that money to survive."

Yup, they do. Money represents work, as money can be willingly exchanged for work. It's a system that allows one person to trade his work for the work of another without resorting to immediate, face-to-face barter. Its great benefit is that it allows compound growth of work, and capitalism excels at fostering it.

"People have to understand that having a job is not about the money. Having a job is about achieving a degree of self worth, challenging yourself, and hopefully serving your community."

Having a job is about paying the rent or the mortgage, about putting food on the table, about turning on the lights, and so on. Only after such things as survival are taken care of can people afford to wax philosophical about it.

"At this point, we have a culture that is more interested in sitting on their asses playing video games and eating Cheetos. They need to have a purpose. How do they get that purpose?"

It's easy, in principle. Force them to work to survive. Stop allowing them to live as parasites.

There is a story that is most appropriate here, but (and I apologize for it) I haven't the slightest idea where I read it. I also haven't the time at the moment to go look for it. I'll try later today.

It's about one of the very early colonial settlements on the east coast. When it was established, it was a communal system in which everyone could draw what he needed from what the colony communally possessed. What developed from that is exactly what one should expect, namely very few hands working and very many mouths feeding. It fostered parasitism. Then the colony changed the rules to what amounts to a free market, i.e. capitalism. In short order, people were working like beavers, and by the next harvest, they were awash in food. It shows that people will work if they have to work to survive, and they will work hard if they personally benefit thereby.


jsid-1190137414-580756  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:43:34 +0000

Lab, I'm still thinking...haven't forgotten. That long paragraph is still resonating with me on a number of levels. I need some more time before writing a response worthy of it.

Unix and DJ, so do both of you believe that money is the most effective tool to motivate someone to work? Is it the only one?


jsid-1190140121-580759  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:28:41 +0000

Unix and DJ, so do both of you believe that money is the most effective tool to motivate someone to work? Is it the only one?

I don't know what DJ believes, but after your Troother screed, I do know you're an even worse hypocritical fool than even I was giving you credit for.

1) Money is a measure.
2) No.

There are many more tools available, but you're unaware of almost all of them.

Luckily, you're open minded enough to consider anything, (other than your ignorance, history, or science.)


jsid-1190143124-580766  LabRat at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:18:44 +0000

I could use a day off anyway.

Well, mostly off. I think the best way to motivate people to work is to offer a tangible reward, and that money merely represents the most flexible of all possible tangible rewards- it gives people more choices, which is both more rewarding and fosters innovation.


jsid-1190154914-580786  DJ at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:35:14 +0000

"Unix and DJ, so do both of you believe that money is the most effective tool to motivate someone to work?

I don't know what Jedi believes, and he speaks for himself, of course.

No.

The most effective way to motivate someone to work, in my opinion, is to let him starve if he doesn't, making sure he knows all the while why he is starving.

It is a good way? No. Do I recommend it? No. But it is effective.

"Is it the only one?"

No.

Its advantage is that people will exchange most anything for money, and vice versa, by mutual consent. Money is a medium of exchange, a measure of work that has been done or is to be done, that is portable, storable, and almost universally accepted.

And to think that you ask these questions, and try to tell us things about economics. Sheesh ...


jsid-1190316159-580957  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:22:39 +0000

Lab,

Okay. Here is my response. It probably won't be as worthy as yours but here goes...

"What does money represent?"

What got me thinking here was your answer. I agree. But think about this...what if Kevin B's Cheeto eating computer guy would come up with a way to provide many of the things we use money to buy. What if many of the "crap jobs" could be automated, leaving time to pursue more worthwhile endeavors like education?

"In order to have free time, unless you're willing to sacrifice most of the other things on the list you need enough money to pay for things that would ordinarily take up time doing yourself, or enough money that you can afford to forgo working and take the time off instead."

Ever heard of Neil Gaiman? Sci Fi writer....I met him a few times...he lives in Minneapolis and he told me something quite pithy. He said, "Mark, now that I have become a successful write I have all three things." I asked him what three things were those. He said, "Money, Work, AND Time."

You're right. You can have money, work and but then you don't have time. You can have time, work, and no money. No one-or few-have time, money and no work. Yet our society keeps feeding the insane notion that if you work really hard, you will succeed and have all the time in the world for leisure.

I submit that if our society fed the notion that if you found a job that you loved (assuming we could automate the crap jobs) that is where the success is. Success is in the doing not the getting.


jsid-1190316490-580958  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:28:10 +0000

Just to add on a little more...your comment about our society being wealthy enough to afford to fund scientists and preserve wildlife at first made me think...Well, there are plenty of people in this society that aren't feeling the effects of that wealth.

But then I thought that if we had a system that valued finding a job that you love and contributing something positive to the world rather than a system geared toward leisure than those people would be working so it wouldn't matter anyway!

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that money in the US has created a lazy culture that has forgotten how to innovate and contribute.


jsid-1190317278-580959  Kevin Baker at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:41:18 +0000

"...money in the US has created a lazy culture that has forgotten how to innovate and contribute."

Bullshit.

Americans still innovate and contribute, probably in greater measure than any other nation. What wealth has done is increase the proportion of the lazy who can indulge their laziness. And our culture has done that through wealth redistribution and risk abatement.


jsid-1190319901-580961  Russell at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:25:01 +0000

Economic systems don't dictate a society's mores.


jsid-1190320289-580962  Kevin Baker at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:31:29 +0000

No one said they did. But they do allow humanity's weaknesses to be exploited. Socialism allows the lazy the ability to indulge their laziness and not suffer the consequences that capitalism (and for that matter, feudalism) would impose.


jsid-1190320924-580965  Russell at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:42:04 +0000

No one said they did.

Sure seemed like our perceived societal woes were being blamed on wealth, the product of a functioning free market system.

Mea culpa if I was confused.


jsid-1190321158-580971  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:45:58 +0000

This is great stuff, guys.


jsid-1190345966-580997  LabRat at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:39:26 +0000

Ever heard of Neil Gaiman? Sci Fi writer....I met him a few times...

I have all of Sandman, all the novels and most of the children's books, and both short story collections, and I kind of hate you a little bit right now.

Anyway.

First of all, there's nothing exclusive about money, time, and work; a great many of the middle class have found some point of balance. Maybe not as much of the one or the other as they would like, and sometimes folks feel they want more of all three, but there are only so many hours in the day. There are workaholics, but they make their choices as they will.

Second, it is unlikely in the extreme that everyone will find jobs they love and be fulfilled in them. It is very difficult to find your life's calling in the Department of Motor Vehicles, for example. Such people use the money they get working at something that maybe doesn't set their hearts on fire, and use the money- and the time that it can buy- to pursue other things that *do* make them happy, which are usually known as hobbies. Stephen King, speaking of horror/fantasy writers, once described writing as a hobby that happens to be marketable, and he has a point.

Some "crap jobs" can be automated, but some must necessarily be performed by a human; sales of any kind spring to mind, as does any field- like science, which believe it or not contains a great deal of drudge work- that requires coming up with new ideas or trying old ones in new ways.

Your statement, by the way, that America is a nation of the lazy is false, at least compared to the rest of the world. Americans work more and harder every year, and recently surpassed Japan in hours worked- we are not the clear leaders (mostly because things like the Asian financial crisis earlier in the decade muddied the data), but those who are beating us in sheer work are even more relentlessly capitalistic societies than this one, namely Hong Kong and Singapore.

Kevin has already pointed out that socialistic systems remove consequences for not working from the equation, and enable those for whom the most desirable outcome in life- and there will always be some- is not to work, not to work.

Where do workers routinely demand lots and lots of vacation time and limited hours- demonstrating a real cultural premium on leisure?

Europe. Under Swedish socialism you can actually arrange to have more mandatory days off than there are days in the year.

When someone is going to take most of your options away by taking most of your money, mandated leisure suddenly seems much more attractive- it's one of the very few choices left.


jsid-1190383645-581005  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:07:25 +0000

"Maybe not as much of the one or the other as they would like.."

True, I will rephrase and say that perhaps it is not enough of one from time to time...

DMV, this would be an example of something that should be automated as possible. Good Lord, what a bore it would be to work there.....

"Kevin has already pointed out that socialistic systems remove consequences for not working.."

I think the consequences for not working should be stark representation of a soul unfulfilled. One of the biggest problems in our culture is that people feel forced to take certain jobs because they don't realize their full potential. This is where teachers come in and I will be the first to admit that they have really dropped the ball on this one...mainly due to laziness.

Agree with you on Europe. The have brought the extended lunch idea to new highs :)


jsid-1190416756-581042  LabRat at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:19:16 +0000

I think the consequences for not working should be stark representation of a soul unfulfilled.

In that case, I would agree with you, as I believe this is the already-extant consequence of large social entitlement programs. In most of human history, before anyone would have dreamed of giving money to people for not working- not that the wealth was there to go around anyway- simply living from one day to the next was an accomplishment. As it is now, if you live in a first-world country with a large entitlement system, virtually nothing is. Even if you take your own initiative and work hard, the steep progressive taxation system in place (required to redistribute income on the scale you recommend here and in other threads) will guarantee that you will not see most of the fruits of your labor- certainly not enough to, say, save or invest a nest egg to do something radical like overhaul your education to go into a new field, or start a new business.

Putting the existential implications of socialism aside for the moment, how exactly would you propose a system for making everyone realize their full potential? In your system, are their any people whose potential might not be much beyond "fry cook"? Why not?


jsid-1190424336-581048  Markadelphia at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:25:36 +0000

Let me think on that one awhile.

I am in complete agreement with you on the entitlement thing. Virtually nothing is an accomplishment anymore and maybe you start a new system by defining accomplishment. Perhaps your fry cook could be a fry cook on a mission to Mars?

More later...


jsid-1190475347-581070  Markadelphia at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:35:47 +0000

Maybe what I am trying to get it as we define accomplishment by earning large quantities of cash. Invariably, people then feel empty if they accomplish this goal...unless they get insane amounts of money and are able to manipulate governments :)

But your average joe is dead inside...rather than letting the work that they do be the satisfaction it is the money that they mistakenly think will give them a sense of accomplishment. The shallowness of materialism comes in here.

So, I would like to see a system where someone who might not be much beyond...say...ditch digger could dig a ditch maybe on the moon? I would submit to you that the exploration of space could be a central element in giving a sense of accomplishment to even the lowly fry cook.


jsid-1190509866-581082  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:11:06 +0000

ditch digger could dig a ditch maybe on the moon?

What of all the fry cooks who can't go to Mars, or ditch diggers who can't go to the moon?

They're unfufilled, and you feel a failure for that?

This really, again, shows more about your viewpoints (and lack of understanding of what motivates people, how the world works, and basic high-school level economics) than explains a workable system


jsid-1190521933-581088  Russell at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:32:13 +0000

And why is the location important?

As a former ditch digger, I can honestly say I didn't notice much more than the ditch and the shovel and making sure the dirt didn't come back down on me. Location was completely irrelevant.

I'm hearing that "and a MIRACLE happens" tune again.


jsid-1190571680-581111  DJ at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:21:20 +0000

"I would submit to you that the exploration of space could be a central element in giving a sense of accomplishment to even the lowly fry cook."

Really? A "central element?"

NASA had to pay the networks to get them to cover the final three Apollo moon missions.


jsid-1190582337-581118  Markadelphia at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:18:57 +0000

Actually, digging ditches is more preferable to me than sitting in a cube listening to someone's bullshit about TPS reports :)

Why wouldn't they be able to go, though? And if they couldn't, why couldn't they cook for the guys in Mission Control?

And why does the public have to pay for it? What if it was privately financed?


jsid-1190589431-581124  LabRat at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:17:11 +0000

We would still seem to be stuck with the fundamental problem of a society that can only possibly exist if everyone changes into a better version of humanity more or less all at once.

At this point we're arguing about what that would look like, not the question of how exactly that would be accomplished without heavy coercion or a miracle.


jsid-1190591483-581129  Russell at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:51:23 +0000

LabRat,

One word : Soma.

That's all we need.


jsid-1190596201-581132  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 01:10:01 +0000

Why wouldn't they be able to go, though?

Because.. not everybody would want to?

And they think they're happy where they are? They like to work as a fry cook and go fishing on the weekend?

Why do you insist on forcing someone into something? Why can you not allow them the freedom to decide their life for themselves?

And if they couldn't, why couldn't they cook for the guys in Mission Control?

Have you ever taken a high school or college level economics course?


jsid-1190653607-581162  Markadelphia at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:06:47 +0000

No one is forcing anyone. If they don't want to go, that's cool. Lab posed the question in such a way that I took it to mean that a person might be dissappointed to not make it much beyond fry cook.

If we are stuck on "the fundamental problem of a society that can only possibly exist if everyone changes into a better version of humanity more or less all at once" then how do evolve to that on a slower level? Perhaps we already are?

I still maintain that people aren't both inspired or motivated anymore like they used to be in the mid 20th century. I think that is the key as to HOW we go about this. The devil is in the details, though...


jsid-1190653643-581163  Markadelphia at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:07:23 +0000

Unix, oops..forgot to answer. Yes and Yes.


jsid-1190654608-581166  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:23:28 +0000

Mark: And if they couldn't, why couldn't they cook for the guys in Mission Control?

U-J: Have you ever taken a high school or college level economics course?

Mark: Yes and Yes.

I should have said Passed an econ course. Oh well. You're supposed to be smart, so I'll assume you passed it.

So, can you answer your own question?

It's Chapter 1 of any Econ textbook I've ever picked up, including ones from the USSR.

Why did you ask me, when you (should) know the answer? Why is that not a viable possibility?


jsid-1190655767-581170  Russell at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:42:47 +0000

U-J, passing doesn't indicate comprehension, either.


jsid-1190657055-581172  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:04:15 +0000

Russell:

True. But still, it's worth pointing out he's asking us a question that he's already supposed to know.

Not believe, mind you, but he should at least know it.


jsid-1190657834-581173  Russell at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:17:14 +0000

U-J:

Ah, I see know.

I'm guessing 'No' would be the correct response at this point.


jsid-1190671595-581199  Markadelphia at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:06:35 +0000

Well, my college roomate currently works at NASA ....so yes I am curious, why couldn't they work there?


jsid-1190680913-581205  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:41:53 +0000

Mark:

I've already told you where the answer to that is found.

Mark. There are 156 Astronauts. Presuming an expansion to much larger corp for a mission to Mars, how many "Fry cooks" would be slated for the mission?

As you in the other thread insisted, "Wouldn't you rather see an elite doctor?"... If you were launching 20 people to Mars, how many would you slate for mere cooks? Who's skill set is fully taken in with short-order cooking?

Or would you pack a lot of MRE's and send some PhD-level Mechanical Engineers? Or perhaps a couple of Doctors, who can microwave some Lean Cuisines in their spare time?

Mark, there are lots of "fry cooks" needed around the world. Very few could work directly for NASA.

Do you not ever consider ... No, you don't. I know, you don't consider how things would work.

Neither did Roddenberry, either. That's not a compliment. Mark, if you want to write fiction, hey, go at it. But your impossible fiction fails miserably as policy choices.

OK, Mark. Under your "Great Society" with "Enlightened, Smart Leaders", how does that help your Fry Cook example?

How would the Best Leader You Can Imagine handle Fry Cooks? (Or Meat Cutters). You know, the ones who have to work the "normal" jobs most of us slog along with?


jsid-1190739690-581249  Markadelphia at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:01:30 +0000

Let me think about these for awhile.


 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>