It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Candidate Declaration: iori_komei, Socialist

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
When it comes down to the basics, we believe in two very old opposite
philosophies.

I believe that naturally, that is without any influence, humans are good,
and will help eachother without reward, because it is the right thing to do.

You (and I am assuming) believe that humans are naturally greedy,
and that they will only help one another if they are getting a reward or
something in return.


I see no point in arguing about money further.




posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I believe that naturally, that is without any influence, humans are good,
and will help eachother without reward, because it is the right thing to do.


I do too. So, why do you want to take my money and do the good for me?


Originally posted by iori_komei
You (and I am assuming) believe that humans are naturally greedy,
and that they will only help one another if they are getting a reward or
something in return.


No, but I do believe that people like to earn what they are worth. Only an idiot would work harder for less pay. Under your system I would quit my job and just live off the suckers actually working.


Originally posted by iori_komei
I see no point in arguing about money further.


OK.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
No, but I do believe that people like to earn what they are worth. Only an idiot would work harder for less pay. Under your system I would quit my job and just live off the suckers actually working.


I meant Johnmike, not you Lost.

You would'nt get the benefits if you were purposefully doing that though.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
You would'nt get the benefits if you were purposefully doing that though.


I know you weren't talking to me. But i had to jump in. Sorry.

Also, I am sure that I and many others, could find ways to buck the system. People do it all the time now with welfare.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Also, I am sure that I and many others, could find ways to buck the system. People do it all the time now with welfare.


I realize that, and I highly dissaprove of it, and is actually one of
the reasons that I am interested in politics, reform for the better.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   
This is not a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of stupidity and blindness. You expect to people to want to work harder for no rewards? Maybe you would, maybe I would, but I'm sure as hell that most humans wouldn't.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
As a Socialist one of the things I would ultimately like to see, though
would not actually do simply because this requires a large time scale
without some catastrophic event occurring, is the abolishment of currency,
and the creation of a society where there is no money, no want, no
poverty, little to no crime, rarely ever disease or ignorance in human
society; wherein virtually everyone works for the advancement of all
humanity, and not for greedy self interests.


Will such a society ever exist, I think so, will it exist before the beginning
of the next century, no, however it is/would be my duty to create some
of the basic skeletal structure for such a society.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
By those criteria, I'm a socialist, too. I want that. But I'm not a socialist, because such a thing goes against human nature. Maybe, depending on what you believe, the place you go when you die is such a way, but obviously not on Earth.

It's interesting to think about the dynamics of such a society, but ultimately it's easy to see that, unless you're an ant or a bee, it would quickly degenerate.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Winston Churchill said it best...

"Any 20 year-old who isn't a Socialist
doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who
is a Socialist doesn't have a brain."



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Since I have so many different ideas, I've obviously not gotten to
explaining them all, and some of them I have'nt even mentioned,
as such there is something that I have not talked about, but feel I
should explain my position on, that being Nationalization.



Nationalization
There are only three industries that I plan to nationalize, and only two
of them fully.


Energy:
Considering that energy is one of the most essential elements of modern
society, therefore I believe that it should be nationalized.
Under this system, everyone, except the CEO and other over payed people
who do not actually do a job, would remain in there current jobs.
Energy would no longer cost money, essentially you would have no
electricity bill.

All environmentally degrading energy sources would be slowly phased
out, and clean renewable energy sources would replace them.

All excess energy produced would go to three different places.
1. To energy storages, essentially giant batteries.
2. Scientific institutions that require excess amounts of energy, but can
not provide it all themselves.
3. To be sold off, of which the profits from would go to the upkeep of the
energy infrastructure.


Defence Industries:
The sheer fact that we actually spend money buying our weaponry and
planes and such has got to be one of the most ludicrous things that we do.
However completely nationalizing it would not be useful.

This would be a hybrid system wherein all defence industries, aerospace,
naval, armament and otherwise would be nationalized in that all
government equipment would be produced without cost, though half of the
resources (metal and composites) would be provided by the government,
and half by the corporation.

The company would be able to produce and sell orders to other sources
(provided that the group is not illegal to sell to) without providing any
monetary earnings from such endeavors to the government.


Health-care & Pharmaceutical Industries:
Since I intend to institute a universal single-payer health care program,
the medical industry would be completely nationalized.
The pharmaceutical industry has proved that it is not capable of remaining
a private entity and providing for the common good, therefore the entire
industry would be nationalized, any drug that is deemed to not be of real
use would be discontinued, and research would than go into curing real
diseases/conditions.

Medicine, as long as it is required, would no longer cost money.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Since I have so many different ideas, I've obviously not gotten to
explaining them all, and some of them I have'nt even mentioned,
as such there is something that I have not talked about, but feel I
should explain my position on, that being Nationalization.



Nationalization
There are only three industries that I plan to nationalize, and only two
of them fully.

By "nationalize" you mean "make a government conquest." Just so you know.



Originally posted by iori_komei
Energy:
Considering that energy is one of the most essential elements of modern
society, therefore I believe that it should be nationalized.
Under this system, everyone, except the CEO and other over payed people
who do not actually do a job, would remain in there current jobs.
Energy would no longer cost money, essentially you would have no
electricity bill.

All environmentally degrading energy sources would be slowly phased
out, and clean renewable energy sources would replace them.

All excess energy produced would go to three different places.
1. To energy storages, essentially giant batteries.
2. Scientific institutions that require excess amounts of energy, but can
not provide it all themselves.
3. To be sold off, of which the profits from would go to the upkeep of the
energy infrastructure.

This is a complete LIE. Everyone will have to pay for energy! The only thing that's being done is eliminating people's right to choose. The only difference is that the energy bill will be replaced with an energy tax! It's the same thing! No one will be able to pick one energy company over another, as the private enterprises will be conquered by the government and made into one monstrous government-controlled monopoly! How is this not an evil concept?


Originally posted by iori_komei
Defence Industries:
The sheer fact that we actually spend money buying our weaponry and
planes and such has got to be one of the most ludicrous things that we do.
However completely nationalizing it would not be useful.

This would be a hybrid system wherein all defence industries, aerospace,
naval, armament and otherwise would be nationalized in that all
government equipment would be produced without cost, though half of the
resources (metal and composites) would be provided by the government,
and half by the corporation.

The company would be able to produce and sell orders to other sources
(provided that the group is not illegal to sell to) without providing any
monetary earnings from such endeavors to the government.

You realize that it COSTS MONEY TO MAKE THINGS, right? You have to pay to construct planes and weaponry, they don't just pop out of thin air!

You want a corporation to pay to produce planes and pay for half of the resources themselves out of their own pocket? Jesus, they'd go bankrupt! Who would want to innovate weaponry if they don't make money off of it. It's purely absurd.


Originally posted by iori_komei
Health-care & Pharmaceutical Industries:
Since I intend to institute a universal single-payer health care program,
the medical industry would be completely nationalized.
The pharmaceutical industry has proved that it is not capable of remaining
a private entity and providing for the common good, therefore the entire
industry would be nationalized, any drug that is deemed to not be of real
use would be discontinued, and research would than go into curing real
diseases/conditions.

Medicine, as long as it is required, would no longer cost money.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by iori_komei]


Another lie. Sorry, but conquering all of medicine under your economic regime won't fix any problems. Medicine will always cost money. The only difference, once again, is that you've destroyed the right of people to choose what they want to pay for. I don't want to pay for some fat, lazy, smoking slob on a McDonalds diet to get his health care. I'll take care of myself, thanks! Again, all that's being done is the replacement of one private industry with a government bureaucracy-ruled monopoly.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
By "nationalize" you mean "make a government conquest." Just so you know.


By nationalization I mean change a company from ebign privately owned
to publically owned and firing the few people who do nothing but sit on
there arses.




This is a complete LIE. Everyone will have to pay for energy! The only thing that's being done is eliminating people's right to choose. The only difference is that the energy bill will be replaced with an energy tax! It's the same thing! No one will be able to pick one energy company over another, as the private enterprises will be conquered by the government and made into one monstrous government-controlled monopoly! How is this not an evil concept?


I would not initiate any kind of energy tax, though as I have mentioned
in my tax plan there would be a tax on buying vehicles that use fossil
fuels, that would increase with the vehicles efficiency decreasing.

The money for energy would come from the rpofits earned from selling
the excess, some would come from fossil fuelbased machinery purchasing
taxes and the rest would come through the few non-specialized taxes.




You realize that it COSTS MONEY TO MAKE THINGS, right? You have to pay to construct planes and weaponry, they don't just pop out of thin air!

You want a corporation to pay to produce planes and pay for half of the resources themselves out of their own pocket? Jesus, they'd go bankrupt! Who would want to innovate weaponry if they don't make money off of it. It's purely absurd.


I have to admit, I should have re-read this better, as I really jumbled
what I meant up.

The government would provide all the material resources, the company
would provide the workers and the machinery, whcih I was considering
resources to.

I re-wrote this three times before I posted, so I was bound to screw
something up somewhere.





Originally posted by iori_komei
Another lie. Sorry, but conquering all of medicine under your economic regime won't fix any problems. Medicine will always cost money. The only difference, once again, is that you've destroyed the right of people to choose what they want to pay for. I don't want to pay for some fat, lazy, smoking slob on a McDonalds diet to get his health care. I'll take care of myself, thanks! Again, all that's being done is the replacement of one private industry with a government bureaucracy-ruled monopoly.


Medicine would be covered by taxes, therefore you would not be paying
for it, nor would you have a specific tax to cover medical.

And diet pills would be one of the first things to stopped being produced
my the major manufacturers, as they are for the most part useless, if
some companies who specialize in alternative medicines want to sell
them, than so be it, but they will not be allowed to lie.

Only real medical problems would be covered under the program, not
cosmetic or trivial procedures.

Though gender realignment procedures would be covered, even though
some may not consider that to be a real medical issue, it is.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komeiOnly real medical problems would be covered under the program, not cosmetic or trivial procedures.


Define trivial.

Breat enlargement can be down to psychological reasons. Many women (through genetic reasons) can be born with nothing there and this can lead to many social problems (especailly during teenage years) and also to many low level mental illnessess, including depression and paranoia.

I'd like to know exactly how you work out what is a "trivial procedure".



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I define trivial as anything that has no real medical value, and is in most
cases not going to effect the psychology of the individual.

Basically nearly all plastic surgery is by my definition trivial.


That all said there would be private plastic surgeons, who would be
rquired to have a license of course, but would be able to perform these
procedures and charge people.


Oh, and liposuction is sort of an in between issue, if it is actually going
to be helpful in making an obese person, who is actually trying, become
more healthy, it would be covered, but if it's say some women who is to
impatient to exercise and eat right, than it would not be covered.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Basically nearly all plastic surgery is by my definition trivial.


Really?

So all reconstructive surgery is trivial? You do realise that skin grafts for example are a type of plastic surgary.

Almost every person (a lot of men get it done too now) use plastic surgary to get over things, ears, nose, breasts, facial disfirguement, etc, can all hinder a person and cause many problems for them. (Including being willing to work) The high cost of plastic surgary and thus limiting it like you want to would actually not help these people. It is easy for us to say it isn't needed, but if you had spent 10 years of your life being bullied because of something I am sure you'd want to change it.

Surgary which would cost very little and allow someone to have the confidence to get back out into the work-place? Very odd that you do not support this.

Somedays I do wonder which branch of socialism you actually claim to be a part of? Because honestly, most of what you said is like nothing I have ever seen.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Really?

So all reconstructive surgery is trivial? You do realise that skin grafts for example are a type of plastic surgary.

Almost every person (a lot of men get it done too now) use plastic surgary to get over things, ears, nose, breasts, facial disfirguement, etc, can all hinder a person and cause many problems for them. (Including being willing to work) The high cost of plastic surgary and thus limiting it like you want to would actually not help these people. It is easy for us to say it isn't needed, but if you had spent 10 years of your life being bullied because of something I am sure you'd want to change it.

Surgary which would cost very little and allow someone to have the confidence to get back out into the work-place? Very odd that you do not support this.

Somedays I do wonder which branch of socialism you actually claim to be a part of? Because honestly, most of what you said is like nothing I have ever seen.


Well I was'nt really considering reconstructive surgery to be part of
plastic surgery, so I was not considering them the same thing.

Of course reconstructive surgery would be provided for.


And I follow my own path, though it could be siad that it most closesly
follows liberal Libertarian Socialism.

I dislike labelling myself, as that would mean I would have to fit into
some preconcieved mold, and I realy do not fit into any specific branch.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well I was'nt really considering reconstructive surgery to be part of
plastic surgery, so I was not considering them the same thing.

Of course reconstructive surgery would be provided for.


Is not all plastic surgery reconstructive? There's something like a 1% chance of complications in surgery, you honestly think people just do it for fun?


Originally posted by iori_komei
And I follow my own path, though it could be siad that it most closesly
follows liberal Libertarian Socialism.

I dislike labelling myself, as that would mean I would have to fit into
some preconcieved mold, and I realy do not fit into any specific branch.


Aside from the:
Corporate Socialist part that you place in your mini-profile? What exactly do you mean by that?



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Is not all plastic surgery reconstructive? There's something like a 1% chance of complications in surgery, you honestly think people just do it for fun?


Well I doubt very many people do it for fun, but there are quite a few
people who just do it because they are narcissists.



Originally posted by iori_komei
Aside from the:
Corporate Socialist part that you place in your mini-profile? What exactly do you mean by that?


I mean that while I believe in Socialism, I also believe in absolute
freedom so long as you do not directly, non-consensually infringe upon
the freedom of another, I am also a strong individualist.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I mean that while I believe in Socialism, I also believe in absolute
freedom so long as you do not directly, non-consensually infringe upon
the freedom of another, I am also a strong individualist.


Then how can you desire to Nationalize things and claim this?

Surely, you are removing their freedom to own that company?
Taxation is another and so on and so fourth.

No offence, but you seem to be doing what many politicians do. You are saying what you think the public want to see. Yet leaving a lot of contradictions in your own statements.

Surely if you are such a strong individualist this is at direct odds with what Socialism is? (Reference works by: Jean Jacques Rousseau, Robert Owen, Plato and Thomas More.) Socialism at its core, is the community deciding something and it limits individual rights (so no one is greater than another single member) where as if you believe in allowing individual rights ( as you claim by saying you are a strong individualist) you in turn can't be a socialist.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Then how can you desire to Nationalize things and claim this?

Surely, you are removing their freedom to own that company?
Taxation is another and so on and so fourth.


I meant social freedoms, I consider capitalism and money to be a
negative thing, and while I can not get rid of it like that, I will do what
I can to make sure it does not flourish, at least not at the cost of others.




No offence, but you seem to be doing what many politicians do. You are saying what you think the public want to see. Yet leaving a lot of contradictions in your own statements.


I can see how it may look like that, as many of my beliefs do appear
to be contradictory, however they have blended to become a unique
ideology.




Surely if you are such a strong individualist this is at direct odds with what Socialism is? (Reference works by: Jean Jacques Rousseau, Robert Owen, Plato and Thomas More.) Socialism at its core, is the community deciding something and it limits individual rights (so no one is greater than another single member) where as if you believe in allowing individual rights ( as you claim by saying you are a strong individualist) you in turn can't be a socialist.


Like I said, I am closest to being a Libertarian Socialist, on social matters
I believe in absolute freedom so long as you do not directly and
nonconsentually infringe upon the freedom of others, however at the
same time I consider the acquisition of wealth to be a diseased mentallity
that infected human though long ago, and that it should be purged, or at
least dealt with, and I believe there are some things where the good of
the whole, like resources and such is important than the wanting of the
one.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join