Print

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

[Virex]

The thing about evolution that most people don't understand is "Survival of the fittest" was a really poor choice of words.  Everyone assumes that it means most fit as in physically fit as in the most superior species.

It's really more like "Survival of the best fit."  The most successful species are those that contribute as much or more to their environment than they take from it.  Species that turn out too much "superior" to their surroundings with the power to expand and consume without limit quickly destroy the environment they depend on.

Still not a problem if the species can adapt fast enough. Adaptive species couldn't care less about what happens to their neighbour...

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Criptfeind]

Also, I'm quite frankly amazed that post didn't hit the character limit.

The post limit is huge, that is not even 1/13 of the way there.

[Aqizzar]

Hey, as long we have a thread for talking about communism and socialism, I have another example of socialist rulers failing.

America elected ultra-anti-business, corporation absorbing, socialist Barack Obama president, and American corporations still eked out the largest numerical quarterly-profits in the country's history.  What a fuckup.

[ECrownofFire]

Furthermore, what if, in this hypothetical country, there was no universal healthcare or anything similar? Only social security for those unable to work. Basically full out social darwinism, but you have a right to basic stuff. You pay for the healthcare you think you need, and can afford. What you can afford is based on your job, and therefore your ability.

Oh great, social Darwinism.  Works great until you think about it for a few seconds.  What would people who, say, have disabilities do?

Social darwinism is a very minor part of it. It would apply only slightly more than it does in the US. As in, those who can work well go up, those who don't, fail. And if you can't, please pay attention to my post, I wrote what happens to disabled people in that very same quote. They get money, and therefore healthcare. I really shouldn't have said "full out social darwinism", but it was 3 AM when I wrote that... yeah, just ignore that part

Basically, the idea behind healthcare in this hypothetical country is that you pay for it using your money. You don't want it, fine. But you're not forced to have it, decreasing your income. The more you can pay, the more you get. It's sort of universal healthcare, but instead of everybody paying it out of taxes (taxes wouldn't even need to exist really, why bother taxing people on the money you give them?), they pay for it out of their own wallet, and they choose the coverage they get by the amount they pay. The idea is that healthcare would be cheap enough that with even the lowest salary, you'd be able to afford it.

[x2yzh9]

Hey, as long we have a thread for talking about communism and socialism, I have another example of socialist rulers failing.

America elected ultra-anti-business, corporation absorbing, socialist Barack Obama president, and American corporations still eked out the largest numerical quarterly-profits in the country's history.  What a fuckup.

This is what I'm talking about. You don't associate something with bad unless that's the exact goal of it, to be evil. Sure, you can hate it, and that's your opinion.

For example, I think Fascism is stupid and bound to fail. But I don't think that because of example governments, ie. The Nazis. You need to look at the ideal government, the most successfull and the most worst that have so far existed. Also I can totally turn that sentence around

"America elected ultra-anti-state-business, dirty capitalist presidents before and the corporations still sucked a fuckton!"

Also, in my opinion, Barack Obama is not fully socialist. None of us can really say because he's never told his beliefs before, but the only thing he's tried to make socialist is healthcare(which I applaud), which likely won't work unless the entire system is socialist.

[Criptfeind]

I think Fascism is stupid and bound to fail.

Why?

[Sheb]

Depends on what you call socialist. Most develloped countries and a bunch of emergent ones got unviersal health care. Are those socialists? I don't think so.

[Shades]

Still not a problem if the species can adapt fast enough. Adaptive species couldn't care less about what happens to their neighbour...

You've missed the point of evolution somewhat. There is a reason a lot of species with sacrifice themselves for the group, and a reason these traits have survived through generations.

[Phmcw]

Using "survival of the fittest" to summaries Darwinism is like using "things tend to fall a lot" to summaries Newtonian mechanics.
That lead to stupid assumption like "if I don't regulate the markets, only fit enterprise will survive and BAM instant perfect economy.
Problem socialists?" <== add trollface here.

[Shades]

Using "survival of the fittest" to summaries Darwinism is like using "things tend to fall a lot" to summaries Newtonian mechanics.
That lead to stupid assumption like "if I don't regulate the markets, only fit enterprise will survive and BAM instant perfect economy.
Problem socialists?" <== add trollface here.

Well technically regardless of if regulate them only the fittest enterprise would survive. It's just the definition of fittest has changed somewhat.

[Leafsnail]

Basically, the idea behind healthcare in this hypothetical country is that you pay for it using your money. You don't want it, fine. But you're not forced to have it, decreasing your income. The more you can pay, the more you get. It's sort of universal healthcare, but instead of everybody paying it out of taxes (taxes wouldn't even need to exist really, why bother taxing people on the money you give them?), they pay for it out of their own wallet, and they choose the coverage they get by the amount they pay. The idea is that healthcare would be cheap enough that with even the lowest salary, you'd be able to afford it.

Well, since this ultra-libertarian country would probably have no minimum wage, that's gotta be pretty damn low.  You'd have to be magicking money out of thin air.

And, well... doing it that way is just inefficient.  People would have to pay more as people opt out, and economically useful people could die to avoidable diseases.  Not to mention the massive amounts of money those in the medical profession tend to cream off...

Well technically regardless of if regulate them only the fittest enterprise would survive. It's just the definition of fittest has changed somewhat.

Yeah... it can turn to "sucking up to the government" and "screwing over their workers" at the extremes.

[ChairmanPoo]

Not to mention the massive amounts of money those in the medical profession tend to cream off...

lies!

(Well, except in the US. )

But yeah, the proposal makes no sense. How do you intend to keep the healthcare system affordable when you are subjecting it to crazy budget cuts? It would either skyrocket in cost, or go bankrupt

[Shades]

Not to mention the massive amounts of money those in the medical profession tend to cream off...

lies!

(Well, except in the US. )

(and the UK)

[Leafsnail]

They don't really have a chance to, since it's government run.

Sure, you get plenty of bureacracy, but...