Print

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

[Trollheiming]

I'd like to commend everyone here. When I came into this thread, many were talking about conservatives as a shadowy force, minions and lackeys to the ultra-rich; but most of you are actually being reasonable and on-point. Although a few resorted to useless name-throwing on a secondary point. That was unfortunate.

The discussion about sexism is not one that I wished to enlarge. I'm a guy. I think like a guy. I'm not sexist enough to believe that I can understand people with vastly different life experiences through use of my superior male brain. Sorry if that's not enough for you, Glowcat.

I think the divide between conservatism and liberalism is approached from many angles, but this angle that there's no such thing as predictable human behaviors might be a significant difference in thought. To my mind, conservatism is slowly testing what works, with the implicit understanding that human nature does limit the possible. Human nature is not infinitely plastic and amorphous, and certain human behaviors are predictable in a large enough sample of humanity and are contrary to utopian social engineering.

Conservatism is not about the rich. The two richest men in America, Gates and Buffet, are clearly Democrats. That the rich are behind conservatism is just a rallying cry to stoke class warfare and misunderstandings. There will always be rich people, whether created by the market elite or by the government from its own elite.

Capitalism needs government, or else the basic assumptions of Adam Smith fail. Government needs capitalism because people need ownership of their lives.

That's it. I'm packing to move.

[Criptfeind]

Okay then.

[SalmonGod]

I see late-game capitalism and statist communism as being practically identical.  I am an anarchist.

Capitalism and Communism are exactly the same thing at their extremes. Anarchy.

Even if you were to clarify Capitalism to be Anarcho-Capitalism, there's still differences in the economic anarchy each accomplishes. Communism's anarchy is one in which there is bottom-up control whereas Anarcho-Capitalism seeks to perpetuate privately owned property and thus places the resources of control into the hands of a few.

A totalitarian communist state, as in the classic examples, places resource control in the hands of a few as well... without the bottom-up control.  You get your elite political class and everyone else.  It's the same as late-game capitalism (and I won't even distinguish between various models of capitalism because they all feature wealth consolidation and an eventual late-game stage), where there's the elite business class and everyone else.

There are many different schools of anarchist thought.  I've never specifically subscribed to any of them.  I figured things out on my own, and eventually boiled my convictions down to this:  Ownership is established by a direct relationship between a person and a thing, and as that relationship fades, so does the claim.  I believe in possession, not property.  I think the ability of any person or group of people to maintain ownership of something which they do not themselves use or depend on is a convention that exists solely for the purpose of subjugation, and is the root of all unnecessary inequality.  The closest I've come to identifying with a label is Social Libertarian, of which Noam Chomsky is the most famous example.

[Trollheiming]

Edit: Not to be hating on communism. I think with the right social shift and the right technology it seems like the longest lasting way of happiness.

Good final comment. See, this is what a conservative would say is impossible because of the very real limits to human nature. You'll never create a top-down authoritarian structure to ensure equality that doesn't just enrich and perpetuate itself.

[Criptfeind]

I thought you said you were leaving?

[Trollheiming]

I thought you said you were leaving?

You didn't blow me a kiss goodbye first.

[SalmonGod]

Edit: Not to be hating on communism. I think with the right social shift and the right technology it seems like the longest lasting way of happiness.

Good final comment. See, this is what a conservative would say is impossible because of the very real limits to human nature. You'll never create a top-down authoritarian structure to ensure equality that doesn't just enrich and perpetuate itself.

Here is where I can demonstrate my interpretation of what you view as human nature.

You would interpret this as something like "it is human nature to be greedy, to want to be of a higher social status than others, etc, and thus people in these positions will inevitably behave in a corrupt manner simply because they are human."

What I believe is that some people are greedy.  Some people care about elevating their social status.  Where there exist positions in society where power is concentrated, those people will gravitate.  Those people are not representative of all humanity.  Their ubiquity within those structures is the product of a procedural filter, not an innate universal quality.

[Descan]

It's like sweeping a net through the ocean that sweeps up only whales, then assuming that since you only caught whales, that's all there is in the ocean.

[SalmonGod]

Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Nearing Critical ‘Tipping Point’

[thobal]

You know what scares me?

It's estimated that more than 1/8th of military aged persons are unemployed.

There is always some wealthy persons who desire more power and sees disaffected youths as a route to it. Lets hope we can find them work before they find their "voice."

[Kogan Loloklam]

Conservatism is not about the rich.

Conservatism is about not taking as many big risks. Not rocking the boat. Rich families that want to stay rich don't want to change what keeps them rich. This helps hold down the poor who want to have a chance to be rich, since they have to change something to change their class.

Labels like "class warfare" are ways to shame people into not changing the system that keeps them poor. Poor can also enjoy the status quo and be conservative, and flexibiliy is generally how you get "noveau rich", but you will find few "librals" in "old money".
But besides in republican propaganda, this isn't about class warfare. It's about government corruption. The few controlling the many and keeping the rewards centralized in the hands of that few.  Tea party and OWS preach the same message with different retoric, and the superpacs own our government. That is why Bradley Manning is my presidential canadate this election year. Or someone else locked up in jail.

[Duuvian]

Lifeguard fired for trying to save drowning man outside of his zone

EDIT: Story sort of contradicts itself, bolded for honesty.

Six Florida lifeguards have lost their jobs for backing a coworker's decision to save a man struggling in the surf but outside their jurisdiction.

Tomas Lopez , 21, was fired Monday for vacating his lifeguarding zone to save a man drowning in unprotected waters 1,500 feet south of his post on Hallandale Beach, Fla.

"I knew I broke the rules," said Lopez, who ran past the buoy marking the boundary of his patrol zone to help the man. "I told the manager, I'm fired aren't I?"

Lopez said he jumped into the water and "I double underhooked him…I was worried about the guy and his health. He was blue."

Six of Lopez's coworkers said they would have done the same thing. And now, they've been fired too.

"What we're basically supposed to do is watch them die," said 16-year-old Zoard Janko, who also backed Lopez's decision.

A spokesman for Jeff Ellis and Associates, the aquatic safety contractor that fired Lopez, said in a statement that "We have liability issues and can't go out of the protected area."

"Usually when the municipalities hire someone to [lifeguard], those organizations are not only taking on the responsibility of the job, but a lot of the liability," said Tom Gill, a spokesman for the United States Lifesaving Association. But, he added, "It seems unfortunate that a guard would do what he's trained to do and be fired for it."

By the time Lopez arrived on the scene, other beachgoers had dragged the unconscious man ashore and started CPR. He is recovering at Aventura Hospital, according to the Sun Sentinel.

Lopez said he didn't think about the consequences of his instinctive run "until after it was said and done."

"[We] should have jurisdiction to help someone without worrying about losing our jobs," he said.

[Lagslayer]

Liability is a bitch.

[abculatter_2]

EDIT: Woo, sleeplessness is GREAT!

Okay, I'm sorry for being incredibly lazy for only reading the first 1.5 posts in this thread, but those first ideas laid out there just made me want to SCREAM that I wasn't there during a time I could've posted...

I'm sure the topic has changed significantly since then, and maybe even this stuff has been said before, but I just have to get these ideas off my chest;

In addition to what LordBucket was saying way back in the beginning of this threa, two potentially feasible, and potentially 'perfect' economic/societal systems appear in my head...

The first one is something akin to the Brave New World utopia, which probably won't happen just because of how outlandish it sounds.
Basically, the ultimate goal of this utopia would be that humans would essentially be 'manufactured' and pre-conditioned, beginning in the womb, to be ideally suited for whatever role in society they are already destined to perform. Whatever sector of society which needed more workers, would simply send a request for them to the 'human factories', or would already know when their current workers are most likely to start dying off, and I suppose those who survive a longer time would just be retired or something, I don't know.
Also, because all people would be per-conditioned and ultimately under completely controlled conditions, and all needs can be anticipated and met in a timely manner by society as a whole, there would be no reason for anyone to want to fight each other, and in the book they even had readily-available, mind-altering drugs made a societal norm, drugs which made one complacent and passive. (An gramme of soma clears ten gloomy sentiments!)

It's... Kinda hard to go over everything which is covered in the book about the specifics of how this 'utopian' society would work. Plus it requires assumptions on technological breakthroughs and human evolution which we simply haven't made enough progress toward yet. And of course I'm not saying that this is exactly, gospel-truth how such a society would function, nor am I saying that this is a desirable, or even a realistically possible result.

The second society, which is to me MUCH more feasible, and could even do accomplished with current technology and knowledge, is to basically just go back to homesteading, and decentralize the economy as much as is logically and efficiently possible, particularly in regards to food production. I've been learning a lot about how to homestead, farm, be self-sufficient, etc. (I haven't learned everything, of course, and as of now the knowledge I have is almost entirely theoretical) and it's amazing just how simple it is to grow and maintain an almost entirely self-sustaining ecosystem designed to provide a human or, more preferably, a large group of humans, with an abundance well in excess of their needs, including food, water, shelter, community, energy, health, well-being, etc.
There are actually many examples that exist, today, as testaments to just how incredibly feasible this is.
This is a good example.
Another good example, which though a bit romantic, is also amazing.
A few more interesting people to look up would be Masanobu Fukuoka, Joel Salatin, Sepp Holzer, (So sorry not to provide you with more videos or articles, but I can't recall any off the top of my head atm and it'd take too long for me to find and read/watch a good example right now. Give me some time and I'll try producing more info.)
And I'm sure there are many more examples I could find, if I really wanted to...

These are some of the more advanced products of a growing movement called, "permaculture", which... Is a bit difficult to fully describe, since there are many different takes on the word. At its core, its essentially just the methods of sustainability, but also, it's often used as a term for something which is, I suppose, a kind of a culmination of science and hippie idealism, where one takes an understanding of nature, ecological systems, biology, etc. and uses it to improve the world around him/her, especially in an agricultural context.

I guess this isn't really so much a new economic system, so much as it is a call to realize what those 'stupid hippies' were trying to tell us (and probably learn of and understand in the first place) all along, that we actually CAN understand and work WITH, not AGAINST, natural systems.

Some potential problems with this would mostly spring up around the fact that, although ecosystems can be simpler then we may think, they are also highly complex, and are prone to literally each and ever variable conceivable in the given context. It does require a fair amount of brainpower and a LOT of knowledge and understanding to be able to take a piece of land and actually make it better, instead of just making things worse. And you can never be 100% certain that you've accounted for everything and anything, especially since somethings are, even if they WERE predictable, simply impossible to fully prepare for.
I'd still say that this is better then the alternative, though.

And now I've gotten myself into some big rant about permaculture or somesuch that I'll probably regret posting later, so I hope I haven't embarrassed myself TOO much...

[Lagslayer]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

EDIT: Woo, sleeplessness is GREAT!

Okay, I'm sorry for being incredibly lazy for only reading the first 1.5 posts in this thread, but those first ideas laid out there just made me want to SCREAM that I wasn't there during a time I could've posted...

I'm sure the topic has changed significantly since then, and maybe even this stuff has been said before, but I just have to get these ideas off my chest;

In addition to what LordBucket was saying way back in the beginning of this threa, two potentially feasible, and potentially 'perfect' economic/societal systems appear in my head...

The first one is something akin to the Brave New World utopia, which probably won't happen just because of how outlandish it sounds.
Basically, the ultimate goal of this utopia would be that humans would essentially be 'manufactured' and pre-conditioned, beginning in the womb, to be ideally suited for whatever role in society they are already destined to perform. Whatever sector of society which needed more workers, would simply send a request for them to the 'human factories', or would already know when their current workers are most likely to start dying off, and I suppose those who survive a longer time would just be retired or something, I don't know.
Also, because all people would be per-conditioned and ultimately under completely controlled conditions, and all needs can be anticipated and met in a timely manner by society as a whole, there would be no reason for anyone to want to fight each other, and in the book they even had readily-available, mind-altering drugs made a societal norm, drugs which made one complacent and passive. (An gramme of soma clears ten gloomy sentiments!)

It's... Kinda hard to go over everything which is covered in the book about the specifics of how this 'utopian' society would work. Plus it requires assumptions on technological breakthroughs and human evolution which we simply haven't made enough progress toward yet. And of course I'm not saying that this is exactly, gospel-truth how such a society would function, nor am I saying that this is a desirable, or even a realistically possible result.

The second society, which is to me MUCH more feasible, and could even do accomplished with current technology and knowledge, is to basically just go back to homesteading, and decentralize the economy as much as is logically and efficiently possible, particularly in regards to food production. I've been learning a lot about how to homestead, farm, be self-sufficient, etc. (I haven't learned everything, of course, and as of now the knowledge I have is almost entirely theoretical) and it's amazing just how simple it is to grow and maintain an almost entirely self-sustaining ecosystem designed to provide a human or, more preferably, a large group of humans, with an abundance well in excess of their needs, including food, water, shelter, community, energy, health, well-being, etc.
There are actually many examples that exist, today, as testaments to just how incredibly feasible this is.
This is a good example.
Another good example, which though a bit romantic, is also amazing.
A few more interesting people to look up would be Masanobu Fukuoka, Joel Salatin, Sepp Holzer, (So sorry not to provide you with more videos or articles, but I can't recall any off the top of my head atm and it'd take too long for me to find and read/watch a good example right now. Give me some time and I'll try producing more info.)
And I'm sure there are many more examples I could find, if I really wanted to...

These are some of the more advanced products of a growing movement called, "permaculture", which... Is a bit difficult to fully describe, since there are many different takes on the word. At its core, its essentially just the methods of sustainability, but also, it's often used as a term for something which is, I suppose, a kind of a culmination of science and hippie idealism, where one takes an understanding of nature, ecological systems, biology, etc. and uses it to improve the world around him/her, especially in an agricultural context.

I guess this isn't really so much a new economic system, so much as it is a call to realize what those 'stupid hippies' were trying to tell us (and probably learn of and understand in the first place) all along, that we actually CAN understand and work WITH, not AGAINST, natural systems.

Some potential problems with this would mostly spring up around the fact that, although ecosystems can be simpler then we may think, they are also highly complex, and are prone to literally each and ever variable conceivable in the given context. It does require a fair amount of brainpower and a LOT of knowledge and understanding to be able to take a piece of land and actually make it better, instead of just making things worse. And you can never be 100% certain that you've accounted for everything and anything, especially since somethings are, even if they WERE predictable, simply impossible to fully prepare for.
I'd still say that this is better then the alternative, though.

And now I've gotten myself into some big rant about permaculture or somesuch that I'll probably regret posting later, so I hope I haven't embarrassed myself TOO much...

Actually, I am all for exploiting nature. A lot of the time, nature is a really, really good bitch. After all, it's only been evolving to do what it does for billions of years. However, at the same time, we are beginning to surpass nature in our own way. Our technology, knowledge, and understanding is outpacing natural evolution by many millions of times. And as society grows, we need more resources for ourselves. Even at 100% efficiency of use and recycling, 100 Calories will never be any more than that. Even if we can sustain the current human population by letting nature do all the work, if we want to expand much more, we will need a better system. That guy in the video mentioned two paths, the natural and the artificial. Right now, we are in an awkward transition between those. Nature on it's own isn't really providing everything we need to do our thing anymore, but at the same time, the system we substitute in it's place isn't optimal, either. As we continue to develop our technology, we have another choice as to how we will overcome this. We could go the mechanical route, which would be more controlled, but also requiring more work. The other option the organic route; I don't mean that like "no pesticides" or whatever, but I mean by augmenting nature. The latter has the benefit of potentially feeling more "natural" and potentially more automated (life can generally keep itself alive without our interference), and may help with morale. However, since it is less controlled, it would likely result in less output that would be useful to us.

At least, that's my take on it.