Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
You would get paid more. It doesn't matter if it's not a lot more. A few extra thousand and an improvement in rank and social status is actually a pretty good motivator. Would an aristocracy really be such a bad thing? Aristocracy has a very different meaning from it's modern connotation. It actually comes from Aros = best and kratos = power. So it really means rule by the best.

And no we don't have that here. We have something more in line with a plutocracy. The people who make the most money in this country actually contribute NOTHING to the economy. All they do is move money around and they get incredible rewards for it. A real meritocracy would put the most money in the hands of those most qualified and those who do an exceptional job.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by The Transhumanist]

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

It seems like we for the most part agree that interdisciplinary teams would be best suited to take on a task like that. I disagree that they should only be advisers however. If you reach an objective scientific consensus on how to handle a problem, why would you hand it off to a politician to screw it up? I say let the interdisciplinary team solve the problem and create the legislation.

I have mixed feelings about cap and trade. Short terms it's gonna hurt every body's wallets and for what? A solution to a problem we might not even have any control over? Oh and so Al Gore and his cronies can become fantastically rich of course. I think we need more data before we can make a decision like cap and trade.

What happens to that production if the urban environments are allowed to degenerate because of our current brand of socialism, which they like to call "progressivism".

Specifically how does progressivism lead to degeneration of urban environments?

What particular brand of socialism are you talking about?

No legitimate businesses want to set up shop in the ghetto aside from corner stores. How else do you improve the standard of living in those areas besides urban renewal projects that provide new jobs and infrastructure?

According to the CBO, the top 1% of the earners in this country paid over 25% of ALL the taxes collected in the country. Just 1% of the pop payed a quarter of our governments taxes. And you say that they contribute "NOTHING" to the economy? I guess all the people they employee are just ghosts as well? Aboritions?

Yes, an aristocracy would be a bad thing. How can you actually say it would be a good thing? Ill fill you in on how the world works. First, you have somebody that does a great job and gets promoted. Since that person now has power to influence who else gets promoted, usually, that person helps get his buddy a bit higher and so on. Its just the truth. You can say all you want that that wouldnt happen in a Libertarian Socialist society, but eventually, corruption would come about....just like it is here.

But then you have an unelected body legislating, making law for all. That would seem to be a dangerous proposal, dangerously close to a beaurocracy. Another of the gripes I have with the current system. We already have unelected, appointed, hired agencies of the government making determinations that are supposed to carry the force of law. There is neither democracy nor republicanism involved there. It's awful close to feudalism, in my estimation. Thankfully, I have no scruples against ignoring the edicts of the Manor Lords. As far as I'm concerned, "laws" passed by non-lawmakers are not laws at all, they're illegal laws, a definite dichotomy

It destroys urban environments by creating even MORE dependence on TPTB, rather than assisiting inhabitants in developing independence, a circumstance that urbanized areas is peculiarly susceptible to. What you get then is an attitude that "the government will take care of it, so I don't have to worry", which in turn breeds a complacency and stifles individual initiative. That in turn allows for the ghetto areas to creep outward, and engulf the city, which produces flight of the middle class, who take the industries with them, in an ever expanding cycle, which spirals the ghetto areas ever downward, taking their inhabitants with them, expanding the ghettos, back to square one.

Rinse, wash, repeat. And "No legitimate businesses want to set up shop in the ghetto aside from corner stores", as you observed. That's not enough to base a viable economy on.

For those reasons, Urban Renewal cannot be accomplished via massive infusions of assistance externally, from a government. It has to come from within, and that starts with the individual. Limited government assistance, in the short term, may have a place, but if that's all there is, that's all there ever will be. Hope will not take root, much less flower. This is why the socialistic "progressive" policies of the past, from before the branding term was even coined, have failed miserably. Unchanged, they will continue to fail. What was meant to be hope was supplanted by complacency that "the government will take care of it". They haven't, and they can't.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

What is your alternative? Rule by the rich? Rule by the average? Rule by the best is the most practical method there is. Corruption can't take place when you are promoting people based on objective evidence of their efficiency. Only when subjective decisions come into play with promotions can someone elevate their buddy to a position of power.

Democracy is the freedom to be wrong. The freedom to make subjective decisions. The scientific method is for reaching an objective understanding of problems and their solutions. I don't see why democracy has to be involved in technical decision making when scientists already regulate each other through peer review.

None of the poor people at the homeless shelter I volunteer at in the ghetto want less help.

They all need an even footing and more importantly jobs in the ghetto so that they can become independent. Without an even footing to start at, many of them are doomed to fail from the onset. How do you expect a homeless man with no higher education, dirty clothes, no interviewing skills and no formal job skills to compete with others in the job market?

Socialism is definitely not the problem that is causing the expansion of the urban poor. It is the lack of socialism and urban development that is hurting them. Trust me, go into the ghetto and interview the poor on what the governments involvement with the urban poor should be and I guarantee you know one will say it should keep it's nose out of the issues.

Exactly, spend a little tax money on urban development and you will see quite a transformation. Change comes from the bottom up remember. The trickle down theory was an abysmal failure.

You are aware that welfare recipients are forced to apply for 15 jobs a week right. Sorry that's 15 different jobs that are currently hiring a week. No one is sitting on their ass and receiving state money for it and saying thank god they will always be there for me. Welfare actually provides more incentive to get employment, especially since welfare benefits are much less than a minimum wage job would provide. The only exception is those that are physically or mentally incapable of working. They receive the money either way and in MOST cases, they have legitimate problems that keep them from working.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

According to the CBO, the top 1% of the earners in this country paid over 25% of ALL the taxes collected in the country. Just 1% of the pop payed a quarter of our governments taxes. And you say that they contribute "NOTHING" to the economy? I guess all the people they employee are just ghosts as well? Aboritions?

You obviously aren't familiar with what contributing to the economy means. It means you are producing a good or a service. Something new enters the market. Otherwise you are just moving money around and not actually contributing to the growth of gdp.

Yes, an aristocracy would be a bad thing. How can you actually say it would be a good thing? Ill fill you in on how the world works. First, you have somebody that does a great job and gets promoted. Since that person now has power to influence who else gets promoted, usually, that person helps get his buddy a bit higher and so on. Its just the truth. You can say all you want that that wouldnt happen in a Libertarian Socialist society, but eventually, corruption would come about....just like it is here.

What is your alternative? Rule by the rich? Rule by the average? Rule by the best is the most practical method there is. Corruption can't take place when you are promoting people based on objective evidence of their efficiency. Only when subjective decisions come into play with promotions can someone elevate their buddy to a position of power.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but "rule by the best" definitely appears to be at odds with the socialist ideal of rule by all.

I beg to differ. None of the tax money spent on urban development thus far has made much improvement. However, since you said "transformation" instead, I can agree with that. The transformation has not been for the better so far, and has instead been a downward spiral, taking the remains of the cities along.

The scientific process, and peer review as well, also incorporate the freedom to be wrong. This is shown every time a new discovery has been made, and existing theory must be changed to accommodate it, else it gets wedged in where it won't fit. SOME form of government, not necessarily a democracy, HAS to be involved, in that laws are formulated to govern the oppressed.

What you suggest here is a technocracy, an aristocracy of the technicians. I fail to see how that is any improvement over what we have now, from either the standpoint of socialism OR capitalism. There is still a ruling class ("THEM"), and an underclass ("US").

Precisely my point. They've gotten used to it being done FOR them, and want MORE.

The same way I did. I didn't start from wealth OR priviledge. I started in a shack in Appalachia, no running water, outhouse, all that. When I went anywhere, I WALKED there. No transportation either. It wasn't like walking down to the corner, or even several blocks. I didn't have an even footing, either. Matter of fact, most of these folks here ALREADY have a decided advantage from where I started out. Somehow, I managed to get out of there without government handouts. That shack has since burnt to the ground.

15 applications a week, and they STILL can't find employment? Are those employers even really hiring? The most I'd heard of previous to this was 5 a week, and at that, most of the recipients targetted establishments that they knew weren't actually hiring. Otherwise, at 5 a week, they would have been employed in short order. Of course, the economy was in better shape back then.

So now all those companys dont make anything new all year? They dont help our GDP grow every year? So if it is not the top one percent who make a majority of the jobs by owning and creating business, how does our gdp grow every year?

My alternative would be to rule yourself. Instill morals and ethics into people from the time that they are young.

To me, government isnt much needed like I said before. Its only really needed for emergencies like a natural disaster, time of war, police, fire, etc. THAT IS IT. I dont need somebody to tell me what kind of lightbulb I MUST use. What sense does that make?

Why do we have to be "ruled" by andybody? I dont need to be "ruled", I just want somebody there in case of an emergency that I cant handle.

could I become a guy that just wants to travel with the money that is given to me every year? Would I have to ask permission every time I want to go somewhere like it is stated in the book "Utopia"? Would I be allowed to not work for a day when I feel like it?

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
It's entirely possible that different cities need radically different changes. As far as my city goes, there hasn't been any attempt at urban development, at least not in the poor neighborhoods for several years. There also hasn't been any more socialism, no increase in welfare for several years either. So at least in my city, your argument that socialism is leading to the expansion of poverty, really just doesn't apply. It's apathy that is causing poverty to expand in my city. The state isn't even trying.

Science if failable because humans are failable. A question like, which alternative energy souce is the best combination of cost-effectiveness and efficiency has a definite answer. It isn't an opinion.

With the right information anyone could come up with the answer but a team of experts is likely going to come up with the answer a lot faster than a bunch of day laborers.

In your version of libertarianism, there would still be a ruling class as well. It would turn into a de facto plutocracy.

That's because they can't provide for themselves without a job and even many with jobs can barely provide for their families without at least food stamps.

That's a very heartwarming pull yourself up by your bootstraps story. To quote a local principle of a city school in a poor area "To pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you must have boots."

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
That is a terrible argument. You could say the same thing about capitalism. If capitalism is so obviously the best choice, how do you explain why almost two thirds aren't head over heels in love with capitalism?

Thanks for the enlightenment. While you are at it, you might want to ask the rural poor of China how much they like the free market.

Or we could provide socialized higher education. No debt. Just taxes. If you really care about your country you wouldn't have a problem paying higher taxes so everyone and anyone can get an education, regardless of financial status.

With that last line, you are just putting words in my mouth. I said a person with an undesirable job should have comparable wages.

They would be doing the same amount of work. I am not saying give everyone a handout for sitting on their couch.

Furthermore, nothing is free in socialism. You pay for it with taxes.

And yet the gap between the rich and the poor only gets wider. Who is reaping the benefits of their economic growth? The capitalists and statesmen.

That is not necessarily a good thing.

It is easier to rise up the ladder because it is possible to exploit the working class. You could always make money by moving your factory to the third world where people will work for pennies on the dollar in worse conditions. Is it legal? Yes. Fair? Hardly.

In socialism, if you want to reach your full potential, you have to work and study harder than the next guy. Competition is still a strong driving force for the more desirable jobs.

I disagree. The country was founded on individualism and sacrifice. Individualism drives individual success. Altruism drives collective success. The poor wouldn't have a fighting chance in this country without altruism.

There's no need for "more" socialism, as, by observation, what we already have in place is sufficient for perpetuation of the downward spiral. Be that as it may, we appear to be well on our way to getting more socialism any how.

True enough, I merely differ in thinking that technocrats have a place advising rather than legislating. The reason for that is that when they are in an advisory role, the voice of the people is still admissible. It may be that the "better" idea is not what they want. When it is forced on them anyhow, what you have is a totalitarian system, bordering on autocracy.

Of course there would be a ruling class, I've never advocated anything different. The difference is that the ruling class ought to be subject to the will of those ruled.

Folks somehow managed before food stamps became de rigeur, before they had the nanny state to do it for them.

My point exactly. These folks in this ghetto ALREADY HAVE better boots than I started out with

I would say partly because capitalism has been given a horrible wrap as of late.

It is far better off today then what it used to be, back when it was in a far more socialist state.

What if I do not want the goverment in my personal finances?

No they shouldnt. People with high paying jobs get those high paying jobs because they have drive and motivation...somthing that drives competition, and builds nation wealth.

How is North Korea doing while we're at it? How about the Soviet Union?

Then you are living in a fantasy world... Most people on governmental aid would prefer to stay on it rather than go out and work.

It depends on who is paying those taxes. The people in poverty would essentially be getting a free handout whilst the "rich" pay for them.

Whereas before, everyone was poor...They are in far better off shape than before. They are a manufacturing juggernaut. By embracing capitalism, they have lifted tens of millions of their own people out of poverty.

And do you know why companys ship jobs overseas? It has to do with all our regulation and taxes... If they did not go overseas, they would not be able to compete in the globalized economy. This is where replacing our tax code with a fairtax would come in handy.

It is easier to rise up the ladder because it is possible to exploit the working class.

Under socialism, there will be a lot less "desirable" jobs. In fact, I would wager that there would be a lot less job growth and a lot more poverty as a result of socialism.

I disagree. The country was founded on individualism and sacrifice. Individualism drives individual success. Altruism drives collective success. The poor wouldn't have a fighting chance in this country without altruism.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
For some. That doesn't justify not caring about the rest.

Take it up with the IRS.

I'm personally fine with it as long as you don't use the roads I pay for,

send your kids to the schools I pay for,

fly in an airplaine,

use the sewer system I pay

for and as long as you make a deal with a police so that they under no circumstances will protect you or your family.

Otherwise keep making everyone painfully aware of how selfish you are.

Both are examples of despotic nightmares not representative of my idea for an ideal society.

How is Denmark?

How is France?

Funny because in order to receive government aid, you must be actively applying for work.

They would still be working. Nothing would be free.

While ignoring the vast majority. How is that acceptable to you?

"Having lifted 300 million of its own people out of poverty in less than a generation - surely one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century - China has now pledged to commit more of its considerable resources to helping us help those in desperate need elsewhere," James Morris, Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme, said in Beijing."

Multinationals don't pay taxes. Gee maybe globalization isn't a good thing.

You still haven't responded to this.

I don't think your wager is worth anything. Let's see numbers.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
No one has experienced state socialism either. I never want to experience either.