Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

To go back on topic, I re-read the definition of capitalism, and I want to remind everyone involved that it only imply the private property of the means of production.

Taxes and most of the things we discussed can be an addition.

1)I for one, don't think that a non-regulated market can ensure that the economy will stay healthy.
I a for the capitalism, but I think it need artificial constraints to stay healthy.

2)I'd also like to point out that some services, very beneficial to he society (police, defense, social care, education, and non immediately bankable research for instance) cannot be funded through usual capitalism, and so should be publicly funded.

Edit: Reformulation of point 1) enterprises corporation and poeple will use every available mean to maximize their profit in a capitalist system. It's up to the government to say which mean are legal, and which are not, and to enforce that system.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The whole problem with Capitalisim, Communism, and Socialism is that humans do not work well in immense groupings. A society of under, for example, 3000 people would work well in a Communist enviorment. Everyone is equal and works together for mutual survival. You have nothing to gain but being expelled from your group by being greedy. Higher numbers of people however, allow for one to take from others without much chance of punishment. There is more than enough for everyone, and those with power can improve themeslves above the standard by hording the surplus. A Capitalist society keeps us functioning in larger groupings, but inspires much greed by its very nature. We end up twisting things to our advantage, and using Capitalisim's vital social class system the ones with the least end up getting hurt. A Socialist system tries to use the best of both worlds, but makes the vital mistake of giving production power over to the ruling government. This gives the corruption in the system a way to control the people of a nation that does not exist in the previous two economic models: It makes the people depend on the government in question being a good and just entity that will not control them through their publicly owned production power. You just tell me how that works out for you.

In short: Our status as flawed, just barley sapient apes has crippled all attempts to create a well working large-scale government. Only through constant attempts to trancend our greed and malice while at the same time exploiting less fortunate nations have we carved out our slowly dying first world societies.

[Phmcw]

Most "socialist countries" still have a capitalist economic system. It's just that more ting are assured by th government (health-care and education mostly).

[kuro_suna]

Most "socialist countries" still have a capitalist economic system. It's just that more ting are assured by th government (health-care and education mostly).

Socialism and capitalism are neither mutely exclusive nor absolute unless you only watch fox news.

[ILikePie]

The whole problem with Capitalisim, Communism, and Socialism is that humans do not work well in immense groupings. A society of under, for example, 3000 people would work well in a Communist enviorment. Everyone is equal and works together for mutual survival. You have nothing to gain but being expelled from your group by being greedy. Higher numbers of people however, allow for one to take from others without much chance of punishment. There is more than enough for everyone, and those with power can improve themeslves above the standard by hording the surplus.

Here in Israel we used to have communities called kibbutz(s? how the hell do you make that plural? using the Hebrew plural sounds awkward). These groups were great at the beginning, when first few people deiced to settle here. At the beginning people owned almost nothing, so a communist society was a very convenient way of living. Later, when the state was much more established, these people found that jobs outside the kibbutzim (Here's the Hebrew plural, sounds like meh doesn't it?) were even more convenient and the sudden increase in power over the rest of the community were also very convenient. My point is, humans are power hungry, and will seek power where ever it may be, and even if it forces them to work against their ideology. Yes, smaller communities do work more effectively, but connect them to the outside world and they collapse.

[Urist McOverlord]

1)I for one, don't think that a non-regulated market can ensure that the economy will stay healthy.
I a for the capitalism, but I think it need artificial constraints to stay healthy.

Fair enough. Actually, I agree with this concept. But my question is this: What kind of regulations do we need? At some point, obviously, regulation becomes strangling to competition and the system it tries to regulate. We want to make the system safe, not destroy the system. Likewise, finding somebody who could effectively argue in the face of all recent evidence that no regulation is necessary is... difficult to say the least. So where does that "butter zone" lie? And do we err on the side of more regulation or less?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Overregulation raises prices and makes production difficult.
Underregulation kills people and ruins lives.

We should strive for a good level of regulation, but it seems obvious enough which is worse of the two extremes.

[de5me7]

Adam Smith would be turning in his grave


death to all his followers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations


Supply should always meet demand

[Renault]

Adam Smith would be turning in his grave


death to all his followers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations


Supply should always meet demand

What?

[ProZocK]

Socialism and capitalism are neither mutely exclusive nor absolute unless you only watch fox news.

Fox news is stupid, im sorry if I am offending anyone by saying that, but the time I spent living in the USA taught me that. They were calling Obama a socialist. Socialism is not being from a liberal political view. True Socialism (Communism) is exclusive to capitalism, since there is no private property.

Naturally. But that's the case when a zealously guarded ideology is taken to its extreme. We're not only talking about religion here; any idea or political alignment, if viewed as sufficiently important by a ruling class of questionable character and moral fiber, or as an instrument of their continued power, will be taken as a justification for torture, murder, persecution, and other sorts of injustice, justified by the protection of that ideology.

Or to put it another way, "Religion doesn't persecute people. People persecute people!"

Also: see the U.S.S.R. An avowedly non-religious state nonetheless engaging in wide-spread persecution, suppression, and murder of "seditious" parties, often on trumped up charges. Basically, anything taken to the extreme is bad, and generalizing that a religious state would cause this sort of thing is true... but only inasmuch as any other state with a single powerful ideological stance would cause that sort of thing.

I agree, Religion by itself is Harmless. But religion in power has a knack on attracting fanatics way more than any other social construct. I really cannot see a way to have a Theocracy and preserve individual liberties. Science for example, would suffer, because if the word of god is law, then anything that contradicts it is by default illegal. That is my issue with it, its not about religion per-se being the problem, its the way that power gets handled when you deal in absolutes ( and I am completely in agreement to anyone that says Religion is not the only thing to deal in absolutes)

The Holodomor.

I am truly sorry, but I am not well informed on the Holodomor and unfortunately as I am writing this post Wikipedia is not loading on my browser. Ill do some more research about it, but if you can tell my how does it relates to the topic in question I will be very thankful.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I am truly sorry, but I am not well informed on the Holodomor and unfortunately as I am writing this post Wikipedia is not loading on my browser.

Wait, you can't get Wikipedia up either? And 4chan attacked Youtube this morning... Oh hell.

[ProZocK]

4chan attack youtube? With what, another porn bomb? S-C-A-R-Y
WE HAVE TO BUY DOGS!!!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, they hacked the HTML code to allow scrolling red text, and redirected everything to Justin Bieber. Or they tried, at least. That was supposedly the plan, but all I saw was people using the hack for their own comments. Youtube killed it in about an hour. Impressive on their part, really. I guess somthing went wrong.

[ProZocK]

Surprising. 4chan usually lacks the Brainpower to do that.
Oh well

[Josephus]

No, they hacked the HTML code to allow scrolling red text, and redirected everything to Justin Bieber.

... I fail to see the problem here. What's wrong with more Justin Bieber?