(April 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 19, 2017 at 1:40 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Venezuela isn't doing so well. It seems that outside of Europe socialism tends to devolve very quickly. And in those countries the popular support for socialism doesn't ever seem to translate into a more just society. Quite often the opposite. Why that should be is a matter of debate. At least in the case of the Nordic countries their generous social programs rely heavily on exporting natural resources like oil more than a dynamic economy and responsive markets.

Capitalism is destroying the World; you can keep your head in a box, or in the sand, or anywhere else that you want; a capitalistic society, such as the US, will end all mammalian life on this World -- that's a scientific fact, as sure as the "Earth moves".  And, so, what's the alternatives?  Capitalism is dead (as it will lead to a dead World, which means no more capitalism), and so, we are basically left with socialism or communism, and I think that the choice between those two is as clear as choosing spring water versus sewer water.

Can you insert a tiny bit of pragmatism in this?

Someone had to make the computer you typed the words "Capitalism is destroying the word". If someone didn't think the idea of a PC up, say IBM or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, you would not have the ability to make such an absurd argument and post it. Are you willing to give the title of your home to the government? Your private ownership of the house you live in is the RESULT of western government saying "You can own things and have your own private bank account".

Capitalism isn't destroying anything, GREED IS. The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies. Gadaffi owned stock in GE, and even in America, assholes like Trump and the GOP think our pay gap is not hurting us and if all we do is simply bow to one class, everything will be fine. 

But no, I don't want to give up my privately owned house. I don't want to give up my computer made by a private company. I do want the ability to eat a burger one day, go to a Chinese food joint the next, and hang out at a privately owned sports bar and watch my Redskins SUCK. The only thing I am against is ABUSE and the pay gap, not private ownership of anything.

(April 19, 2017 at 3:43 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Capitalism is destroying the World; you can keep your head in a box, or in the sand, or anywhere else that you want; a capitalistic society, such as the US, will end all mammalian life on this World -- that's a scientific fact, as sure as the "Earth moves".  And, so, what's the alternatives?  Capitalism is dead (as it will lead to a dead World, which means no more capitalism), and so, we are basically left with socialism or communism, and I think that the choice between those two is as clear as choosing spring water versus sewer water.

Can you insert a tiny bit of pragmatism in this?

Someone had to make the computer you typed the words "Capitalism is destroying the word". If someone didn't think the idea of a PC up, say IBM or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, you would not have the ability to make such an absurd argument and post it. Are you willing to give the title of your home to the government? Your private ownership of the house you live in is the RESULT of western government saying "You can own things and have your own private bank account".

Capitalism isn't destroying anything, GREED IS. The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies. Gadaffi owned stock in GE, and even in America, assholes like Trump and the GOP think our pay gap is not hurting us and if all we do is simply bow to one class, everything will be fine. 

But no, I don't want to give up my privately owned house. I don't want to give up my computer made by a private company. I do want the ability to eat a burger one day, go to a Chinese food joint the next, and hang out at a privately owned sports bar and watch my Redskins SUCK. The only thing I am against is ABUSE and the pay gap, not private ownership of anything.

Most of the fundamental discovers that lead to computers and coffee makers came out of the not-for-profit Academy, the scientific establishment within Universities and a small number of their peers who worked at the mostly-not-for-profit labs, such as the largely now-defunct AT&T Bell Labs.  And, so, even without capitalism, technology would have still developed, perhaps a little more slowly, but developed it would have, likely, without nuclear bombs & warheads.

Yes, the answer is World Socialism but Humanity is a long, long way from that one!  And, it will likely take World War III for folks to realize that, at least those who survive the process.

(April 19, 2017 at 3:43 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Capitalism is destroying the World; you can keep your head in a box, or in the sand, or anywhere else that you want; a capitalistic society, such as the US, will end all mammalian life on this World -- that's a scientific fact, as sure as the "Earth moves".  And, so, what's the alternatives?  Capitalism is dead (as it will lead to a dead World, which means no more capitalism), and so, we are basically left with socialism or communism, and I think that the choice between those two is as clear as choosing spring water versus sewer water.

Can you insert a tiny bit of pragmatism in this?

Someone had to make the computer you typed the words "Capitalism is destroying the word". If someone didn't think the idea of a PC up, say IBM or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, you would not have the ability to make such an absurd argument and post it. Are you willing to give the title of your home to the government? Your private ownership of the house you live in is the RESULT of western government saying "You can own things and have your own private bank account".

Capitalism isn't destroying anything, GREED IS. The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies. Gadaffi owned stock in GE, and even in America, assholes like Trump and the GOP think our pay gap is not hurting us and if all we do is simply bow to one class, everything will be fine. 

But no, I don't want to give up my privately owned house. I don't want to give up my computer made by a private company. I do want the ability to eat a burger one day, go to a Chinese food joint the next, and hang out at a privately owned sports bar and watch my Redskins SUCK. The only thing I am against is ABUSE and the pay gap, not private ownership of anything.

I think you're thinking of communism, not socialism... but hey, I get it... the cold war era propaganda in the US worked really well!

(April 19, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(April 19, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The problem with capitalism is that it drives individuals, communities, companies and societies to the lowest common denominator.  For instance, Obama's climate-change policies and/or directives were a tiny step in the direction needed to save the Planet which The Donald has now completely undone.  When you have a Society whereby people put their short-term economic gain over their children or grandchildren ceasing to exist, then you have a Society that is built upon irrational premises, because death is rarely a rational choice for any human being who is at least in decent health.  Therefore, capitalism is irrational because it is destructive.

I think you have a one sided and not entirely accurate view of capitalism.  Capitalism gone wrong, essentially.  Well sure, if people align their interests (or have their interests aligned) with shitty things shitty things happen..but if we were chasing the dollar on a bunch of awesome things...wouldn't awesome things happen?  

Quote:Socialism, on the other hand, will guarantee every human being, without exception (at least in those countries that have it), a minimal standard of living, hence, life, which will insure that no human being (children, especially) will have to endure any condition of abject poverty.  Socialism will allow real climate change practices to be implemented while guaranteeing, without exception, that every human being has a good home with food, water, heat, clothing, and a minimal standard of living beyond that, which I would include of having Internet and cell phone access for all.

How, how will it do that?  We know how capitalism can be employed to provide some of those things to some people...it's effectiveness is variable from place to place, time to time, and even within those places and times who has what is not uniform...but we can see that it does provide, and how.

How does socialism, in your view, provide those goods and services?  I -also- think that all of those things should be available to all people, I think that capitalism is a good way to acquire the resources required to make it happen.  People want more than they need.  So long as what people want is monetized the proceeds can go, in whatever portion we accept, to what we need.  So long as it's privately monetized, the state doesn't have to micromanage each process, it can focus on the shit they don't feel should be privately monetized.

Capitalism is short-term gain at the expense of long-term loss.  But, yes, you are absolutely right (and, absolutely wrong at the same time!)  Capitalism is better than socialism, in the short-term.  As such, capitalism is, inevitably, destined to fall into the Tragedy of the Commons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

In capitalism, people have every incentive to cheat, to exploit their neighbors, close and far, to bend and break every rule, so long as they can get away with doing so!  Socialism, at least, says that everyone is going to have a minimum and maximum (to insure the minimum) standard of living; as such, the temptation to cheat long-term or short-term is much less than it is with the "free markets".

---

(April 19, 2017 at 4:15 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 19, 2017 at 3:43 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Can you insert a tiny bit of pragmatism in this?

Someone had to make the computer you typed the words "Capitalism is destroying the word". If someone didn't think the idea of a PC up, say IBM or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, you would not have the ability to make such an absurd argument and post it. Are you willing to give the title of your home to the government? Your private ownership of the house you live in is the RESULT of western government saying "You can own things and have your own private bank account".

Capitalism isn't destroying anything, GREED IS. The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies. Gadaffi owned stock in GE, and even in America, assholes like Trump and the GOP think our pay gap is not hurting us and if all we do is simply bow to one class, everything will be fine. 

But no, I don't want to give up my privately owned house. I don't want to give up my computer made by a private company. I do want the ability to eat a burger one day, go to a Chinese food joint the next, and hang out at a privately owned sports bar and watch my Redskins SUCK. The only thing I am against is ABUSE and the pay gap, not private ownership of anything.

I think you're thinking of communism, not socialism... but hey, I get it... the cold war era propaganda in the US worked really well!

Not quite -- in communism, there is little private property, but that is not what I am advocating here.  I think that good socialism will retain private poverty with some private corporations.  Still, the government would be the dominant factor in the economy, with private industry in service to the country as opposed to being in competition within and between sectors.

(April 19, 2017 at 4:14 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 19, 2017 at 3:43 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Can you insert a tiny bit of pragmatism in this?

Someone had to make the computer you typed the words "Capitalism is destroying the word". If someone didn't think the idea of a PC up, say IBM or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, you would not have the ability to make such an absurd argument and post it. Are you willing to give the title of your home to the government? Your private ownership of the house you live in is the RESULT of western government saying "You can own things and have your own private bank account".

Capitalism isn't destroying anything, GREED IS. The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies. Gadaffi owned stock in GE, and even in America, assholes like Trump and the GOP think our pay gap is not hurting us and if all we do is simply bow to one class, everything will be fine. 

But no, I don't want to give up my privately owned house. I don't want to give up my computer made by a private company. I do want the ability to eat a burger one day, go to a Chinese food joint the next, and hang out at a privately owned sports bar and watch my Redskins SUCK. The only thing I am against is ABUSE and the pay gap, not private ownership of anything.

Most of the fundamental discovers that lead to computers and coffee makers came out of the not-for-profit Academy, the scientific establishment within Universities and a small number of their peers who worked at the mostly-not-for-profit labs, such as the largely now-defunct AT&T Bell Labs.  And, so, even without capitalism, technology would have still developed, perhaps a little more slowly, but developed it would have, likely, without nuclear bombs & warheads.

Yes, the answer is World Socialism but Humanity is a long, long way from that one!  And, it will likely take World War III for folks to realize that, at least those who survive the process.

It depends on what you mean by "socialism". I warn you to be careful with that word. America has actually ALWAYS been a social country. The first Amendment is a call to neutrality and anti monopoly. It took even longer after the signing of the constitution to extend rights to more, but the pay gap issue and market issue didn't really get fixed until after WW2 when most Amercains finally realized the old "you are on your own" and "fuck you I got mine" prior economics that caused the great depression didn't work.

I don't want America to become Cuba or Stalin's Russia or North Korea. Our species is already "social" that is why we form groups. I simply don't think economics has to be all government run or all private sector. I do think globally however, the world's rich, in all nations, both friend and foe, have way too much power. But I don't think you'll ever end the private sector.

By the way, I am defining "socialism" to be any country that has a universal health-care system, like Canada or the UK, or, for that matter, Cuba!

(March 31, 2017 at 1:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 11:00 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Maybe because most people do not accept the definition of atheism as lack of belief, in which case they considered atheists opposed to the fundamental principle for justifying inherent human rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If there is no God, there are no inalienable human rights.

Bullshit. But if you want to get into American history I can give you quotes from the Founders who railed against the concept of pulpit politics. 

"whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists" Thomas Jefferson. Now if he believed rights came from a God, it still would not matter to me. What mattered to him was the idea that an individual was just that. He was a Unitarian and a deist FYI.

Now even outside the issue of any nation, your claim is still tribal and just as messed up in wanting a social pecking order propped up by government. Our government defends freedom of religion, not by favoring one god over another or one sect over another, but common law. 

"Allah is the source of human rights" still make sense to you?
"Yahweh is the source of human rights" still make sense to you?
"Buddha is the source of human rights" still make sense to you?
"The Hindu creator God Brahama is the source of human rights" still make sense to you?

Even if I agreed with you that our rights as a species came from your particular pet deity claim, it still would not matter to me. Do you care to consider the political divisiveness this causes, even under the same label?  Have you ever read Jefferson's "Virginia Religious freedom act"? It became the prototype Madison Used to write the First Amendment. 

The founders were a variety of beliefs, mostly deists and Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson out of all of them were the biggest critics of religion interfering in politics. All of them viewed your personal beliefs as yours. So in that context I am not required by law to believe my rights came from your pet deity regardless. 

The only thing the First Amendment protects is your right to follow a religion or believe in any god you want or no god. It DOES NOT set up a religious pecking order where Christianity gets to be the sole driver of the bus where all other religions are mere passengers or sit at the back of the bus. 

If the founders had intended on Christianity getting special status, they failed by not making it clear in the First Amendment or the oath of office "no religious test". I think they got both right, so if you want to blame anyone for the argument we are having now, blame them. I wont, I think they did the right thing.

Even if you got rid of all non Christians in America you would still have political divisions which exist today caused by religion. The Obama liberal black baptist voter believes that our rights came from the Christian god, but so does the Trump voting Republican baptist. See the problem it causes politically? Now the only thing that prevents us from looking like Sunni's and Shiites is the Constitution and secular protection of pluralism.

I could care less where you believe our rights come from, you still have no proof they are a result of your pet deity, nor does the law require me to buy your claim.

---

FYI, the Declaration of Independence is not law. It was a fuck you letter to the king. Our nation was not official until the last signer of the Constitution which IS LAW. Nowhere in the Constitution do you see the words "Christian, Jesus or Bible". They left those words out for a reason.

Exactly! Nailed it! If I could give this two or three kudos I would.

Socialism is a term of art that can mean just about anything from Fabians to fascists. But it seems to me that the underlying assumption is always the same - society is the primary unit of human relationship. It seems that social unit has been variously defined as the nation state, a local commune, the human race, etc. Those as opposed to the individual and/or family.

(April 19, 2017 at 4:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Capitalism is short-term gain at the expense of long-term loss.  But, yes, you are absolutely right (and, absolutely wrong at the same time!)  Capitalism is better than socialism, in the short-term.  As such, capitalism is, inevitably, destined to fall into the Tragedy of the Commons:

If you say so.  

Quote:In capitalism, people have every incentive to cheat, to exploit their neighbors, close and far, to bend and break every rule, so long as they can get away with doing so!  Socialism, at least, says that everyone is going to have a minimum and maximum (to insure the minimum) standard of living; as such, the temptation to cheat long-term or short-term is much less than it is with the "free markets".

....okay, if you say so, but- 

-how is socialism going to provide those goods and services?

(April 19, 2017 at 4:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 19, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I think you have a one sided and not entirely accurate view of capitalism.  Capitalism gone wrong, essentially.  Well sure, if people align their interests (or have their interests aligned) with shitty things shitty things happen..but if we were chasing the dollar on a bunch of awesome things...wouldn't awesome things happen?  

How, how will it do that?  We know how capitalism can be employed to provide some of those things to some people...it's effectiveness is variable from place to place, time to time, and even within those places and times who has what is not uniform...but we can see that it does provide, and how.

How does socialism, in your view, provide those goods and services?  I -also- think that all of those things should be available to all people, I think that capitalism is a good way to acquire the resources required to make it happen.  People want more than they need.  So long as what people want is monetized the proceeds can go, in whatever portion we accept, to what we need.  So long as it's privately monetized, the state doesn't have to micromanage each process, it can focus on the shit they don't feel should be privately monetized.

Capitalism is short-term gain at the expense of long-term loss.  But, yes, you are absolutely right (and, absolutely wrong at the same time!)  Capitalism is better than socialism, in the short-term.  As such, capitalism is, inevitably, destined to fall into the Tragedy of the Commons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

In capitalism, people have every incentive to cheat, to exploit their neighbors, close and far, to bend and break every rule, so long as they can get away with doing so!  Socialism, at least, says that everyone is going to have a minimum and maximum (to insure the minimum) standard of living; as such, the temptation to cheat long-term or short-term is much less than it is with the "free markets".

---

(April 19, 2017 at 4:15 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I think you're thinking of communism, not socialism... but hey, I get it... the cold war era propaganda in the US worked really well!

Not quite -- in communism, there is little private property, but that is not what I am advocating here.  I think that good socialism will retain private poverty with some private corporations.  Still, the government would be the dominant factor in the economy, with private industry in service to the country as opposed to being in competition within and between sectors.

Neither capitalism or socialism are good or bad, what is bad is greed can create a monopoly out of BOTH. Un rules by selling his utopia that if you just obey him he will give you what you need. HE is a capitalist too. I only agree that we as a species need to think long term and not make the quick buck the default. In America one party and the top class, even though we have more checks on power, have been winning elections by selling the utopia that only the top know what they are doing. 

It boils down to greed for power in both extremes and it always takes money to create that monopoly and maintain that monopoly. 

Globally speaking both friend and foe think like a cheetah, everyone supports their economy thinking speed is the key and both friend and foe, open and closed societies depend upon a top class to compete in the global market. I only agree that you cant consume your way to prosperity and yes, the competition is at the top to exploit, not make things easier on workers. But that includes closed societies too. Un has far more people in poverty and still is rich and invests in the global market.