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.

 

Why Socialism Fails

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by harpsounds
 


Really mix it up sort of build your supermarket 2 miles away from other small shops and make it a law. Total freedom is not freedom because it's planed to fail as they can see it in the plan they made.

All these things for example, protection for the small, or total liberty of the economy have costs and implications. When you have it all as a corporation
you don't really look back, it's greed and freedom becomes something else, it becomes control in the end. Control from the start or control at the end for corporations.

I would put this in two basic things, It's unlimited power&control at the end or limited control from the start by setting limits.
Control from the start is better than the part with control at the end because who has more control at the end is more of a control freak and freedom sleeps away VS control from the start to limit who controls everything.
Free market economy is just planned out not to be free at the end, it's just how things were planed from the start by people who run the game.




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by harpsounds
 


Exactly so harpsounds! That elementary regulation should also restrain the expansion of industry and business to ensure that real wealth is created rather than 'virtual' wealth which we see an abundance of at the moment.

Having fifty grand of credit available does not make an individual wealthy! Running a national economy on the basis of future taxation does not make a country wealthy! Buying today with the promise of tomorrow never works out and only creates a spiralling circle of promissory transactions that, by their very nature, cannot reflect the disparity between expenditure now and income later. It is a nonsense, no more likely to end in success than for the inveterate gambler who places an IOU on 'just one more bet'.

Market analysts are humans and humans, inevitably, see what they want to see in terms of risk analysis ("It will be OK!"). Fair enough, I squander a pound now and again to play the national lottery, but the risk of losing a quid is nothing in comparison to what I could win even at odds of 14 million to one. Now, would I bet my whole wage on it? No. However, would I bet your wage on it... Yeah, I'd have a go and I'd even split some of the winnings with you.

Doesn't seem fair... but that is what has happened... except that instead of your wages being used to bet on the lottery, I spent it on something else and gave the cashier an IOU... Oh dear... Can somebody lend me some money because I can't afford to actually go to travel to work any longer...

The primary function of regulation should be to protect, not to control, although of course, protection is most often effected via control. Society and its governance mechanisms must understand the applicable scope of control and most importantly, where is does not support the primary function of protection.

Protection from negative actions by citizens, legal entities (i.e. business) and state must be paramount!



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 




Gosh, you are feeling obtuse this evening...


It is actually midday where I am at.





It was clearly implied that without a 'society' per se, there is no requirement for normalising attributes and I used the extreme example of 'law' to illustrate the point. In the broadest sense, laws define a behavioural model acceptable to society, between individual citizens, also with the state and regardless of whether they are implemented as prohibitive or permissive.


The law you are referring to can only work when that body of law is a collection of laws that protect the rights of the individual. If legislation is implemented that disregards the rights of the individual, a breakdown in respect for law is the natural course of this legislation. Whatever is acceptable to "society" can not be known, and certainly not in a court of law where "society" cannot give sworn testimony as to what it deems as acceptable. Individuals, on the other hand, can and do give sworn testimony.




Of course, laws do not stop people from doing something, they simply provide a (hopefully!) clearly definition of acceptable behaviour.


Law is self evident. People do not need it legislated in order to know that murder is wrong. Certainly the would be victims don't need legislation in order to understand it is wrong. Legislation can only work as a method by which the prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment or fines, of a crime are administered. Hence, due process of law.




As for justice, that is an entirely subjective concept; the law tells you which roads to use to get somewhere but justice is an ambiguous reference to the distance... "Is it far?" says the townie, "Oh yeah, quite a long way..." replies the farmer.


The only law that would dictate which roads can be used and which can not would be the law of trespass. All other rules dictating usage of roads are not law, but merely legislation. Legislation is not law, it is merely evidence of law. It is ironic indeed that you would so willingly declare justice subjective since in its simplest terms justice is the act of being just or fair. Is it not fairness that you hope to advocate when you claim your non-ideological equality of wealth is necessary? Fairness is subjective.




crimes have no definition unless within the context of the law.


This is absolutely correct...within the context of law. Not legislation, but law. Crime can only exist when there is a victim. The so called "victimless crimes" invented by legislation are no more law than declaring Pi be an even 3.0 would be law. Wishful thinking can not be legislated into law, all it can do is be passed as legislation.




The concept of 'natural law' is only a product of society since by definition is applies to concepts that are generally accepted as ubiquitous and not specific to an individual's interpretation.


Uh-huh. Tell that to the virus that invades your body. Try explaining to a bear in hibernation in its cave the concept that all property is theft, or explain to a black widow spider that there are normalized rules of co-operation, see how far that gets you. Natural law extends well beyond the production of "society", and you give "society" too much credit.




All of that said, I am not sure what your point was since my original contention still stands: laws are a function of society and without recognition of the existence of society embodied in a formal structure then no laws are appropriate - not even natural law which becomes part of the whim of individual human nature.


Gravity is a law. How hard is that to understand? It did not become law shortly after Isaac Newton wrote down the mathematical equation describing gravity, and Newton did not legislate gravity. People knew of gravity long before Newton was born. Gravity is self evident. So too are the inalienable rights of people. People pre-exist governments and do not exist because governments legislated it so. Governments were formed to establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. These governments were established by people who pre-existed the government established.

Laws are discovered not invented. In establishing justice it was discovered that laws governing humanity function best when they serve in the protection of individual rights. It is self evident that legislation that disregards the inalienable rights of people only establishes injustice, and encourages disarray and undermines domestic tranquility.




Co-operation is only achievable through normalisation, although granted, the micro does not necessarily relate to the macro. A simple example, if really want a dozen eggs and the farmer wants my expensive wristwatch in payment, as long as we agree that it is a fair exchange then everybody is happy - we have normalised the worth of our goods.


The black market functions through co-operation. Would you call the black market a system of normalization?

Normalization defined


(the imposition of standards or regulations) "a committee was appointed to recommend terminological standardization"


Normalization defined:


1. Statistics: Standardization of data obtained from different sources at different periods, through peer review or comparison against the objectives of data collection.

2. Database programming: Process of reducing a complex data structure into its simplest and most stable form by eliminating redundant attributes, keys, and relationships.

3. Metallurgy: Treatment process in which a metal is heated to a particular temperature (800°C to 900°C for steels) and then cooled in a particular manner to relieve internal stresses, refine the grain size, and improve the mechanical properties.


Which of these best describes the black market, do you think?

Normalization defined:


To make normal, especially to cause to conform to a standard or norm


Surely if "normalization" is to be given any credence at all, then a standard definition of the word would be in order, don't you think?




Since we are in a society and since it is acceptable to suggest that laws exist as a function of that society, so natural law also applies. Natural law for human beings (and even some of the animal kingdom) indicates a support for the defence of the weak.


You presume too much and the worst presumption you make is that what is acceptable is what you say is acceptable. Herein lies the greatest problem with the "normalization" of your ideas. Fair becomes what you say fair is. Equality becomes what you declare equality to be, and it is fairly evident that facts are not things you have much respect for. Defense of the weak requires declaring someone weak in order to defend them. What of the strong? Do they not deserve defense as well? How about this idea, defense of oneself, and of their loved ones. Regardless of weak or strong, defending ones loved ones is a natural right. Hell, it is a natural right to defend total strangers if circumstances dictate such defense, but that defense is not predicated on one being weak in order to gain such defense.




I would suggest that an elderly citizen with no realistic method of accruing goods or monies for transaction should be classified as 'weak'.


I would suggest you are a little too obsessed with declaring other people weak. We help who needs help regardless of their strengths or weaknesses. Conditional help is not help but is negation. Help is help.


Clearly, the rule of law favours a clearly defined structure and since charity is not definable per se, it makes sense for society to define and maintain an infrastructure for helping the weak.


Charity is not definable per se?


1 : benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity

2 a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor c : public provision for the relief of the needy

3 a : a gift for public benevolent purposes b : an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift

4 : lenient judgment of others


www.merriam-webster.com...

Charity is most certainly definable and is intrinsically the act of helping others.




You read an awful lot of information into my previous post that simply was not there. I do not advocate 'equality of wealth' at all, quite the opposite within reasonable boundaries. As such I hardly need to defend a position that I do not advocate.


What are you saying then, that you advocate a disparity of wealth, only set with boundaries? Instead of getting defensive about it why don't you just make clear what it is you are advocating, which seems at this point to be regulation. Is that what you are advocating, regulatory agencies that impose rules on people as to what they can and cannot do, and how much they can and cannot make?




Again, you've injected much more than I actually wrote and have made many, incorrect, assumptions. Why does authority place regulators above equality? That is an odd statement.


If a regulator is to have any authority over those being regulated then necessarily those being regulated are not on an equal par with the regulator. Self regulation would be equal, in that all people regulate themselves and answer to no regulator. Find that odd, do you? That people can and should regulate themselves?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 





The rule of appropriate law is the authority to which everybody must adhere.


Appropriate law? How about everyone adhere to law, and what ain't law we call inappropriate legislation? There is a good reason the courts have the power of judicial review, and a damn good reason people have the right to a jury of their peers when charged with a crime. That reason is that all too often legislatures do not legislate law, and instead legislate what they think appropriate. Regardless of what legislatures think, the law remains law, and if it isn't protecting the rights of individuals, and instead abrogating and derogating the rights of individuals that it just isn't law, regardless of large of a majority will declare it appropriate.




That is a concept but agreed, in implementation people will abuse that system, however, the abuse of that system should also be defined, either by prohibition or permission. Would you prefer anarchy and the rule of natural law and all of its interpretations?


The system you are advocating is being implemented, and it is being abused not just by business people, but by government officials as well. In fact, the corruption and abuse is so pervasive I would suggest that anarchy is what is in place, not the rule of law. What do I prefer? I prefer a respect for all peoples inalienable rights. I prefer self government, with a limited government set in place to establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare. That is what I prefer. This is not what exists today.




I agree to an extent, I am not a socialist although I recognise the benefit to society of some social principles - as you would expect since 'social' pertains to 'society'. In truth, capitalism cannot work either without clear regulations. As I indicated earlier, society itself may only be maintained at a macro level via the use of clearly defined laws not subject to the whim of authority.


It is agreed that capitalism requires some regulation. That regulation is not in the market place itself, but is established to ensure massive competition and a currency backed by wealth that all can agree upon the measure of that wealth. Neither of which exists in today's market in spite of the fact that we actually have anti-trust laws that have been legislated to prevent companies from becoming "too big to fail", but instead what we have for regulators is a Federal Reserve who have not only ignored the anti-trust laws and insisted that tax dollars be spent to bail out companies "too big to fail", that same Federal Reserve has foisted upon us a currency of fiat money.




Do you want a police force? A fire service? Who pays for that? I suppose that you do not require an army?


These questions you ask after I called you on your own disingenuous declarations when you accused me of being disingenuous by assuming that I have no concern for the elderly. Now you are relying on the same disingenuous tactics to deflect away from my charges against you, with irrelevant questions. In spite of the fact that I asserted the purpose and function of government, and that is to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and provide for the common welfare, you now disingenuously pretend I have not made this clear.




It is the definitions of 'basic levels' and 'needy' that require evaluation clarification, not the concept itself - implementation rather than concept!


Your games of semantics do nothing to define what it is you claim requires definition. Tautology is a game the disingenuous play.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 





Should the bank/bankers be criminalised? Is it criminal that, if by an action of intent, such devastation is caused to people's lives?


The Federal Reserve should be abolished, that is what should happen, and it is the current spate of regulations that favor banking institutions that are the real problem. The fact of the matter is that too much value is placed on banking institutions, and they are not necessary in order for a free market to survive. There should not be any legislation that favors one business over another. Further, and I cannot stress this enough, the "too big to fail" paradigm is as anti-capitalistic as one can get. This "too big to fail" paradigm was sold to the public, (actually not really sold but shoved down their throats), by regulators.




Of course, by my own statements, crimes are only defined by contradiction of law and I guess we do not have laws to stop individuals operating in the free market economy from billowing toxic debt across the globe.


Crimes only exist when there is a clear and identifiable victim harmed by a clear and identifiable transgressor. The billowing toxic debt you refer to is not an example of a free market, but rather a profoundly regulated market with your precious normalization and implementation. Think about that.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 





Okay, so you've shown me stories where people help each other out. So explain to me why the economics class failed.


Here is the statement you made about humans that I refuted:




Humans aren't willing to help each other out.


Your response is not to acknowledge that you misspoke or grossly overgeneralized humanity, but instead to engage in deflection now demanding I explain to you why the "economics class failed". What does economics have to do with people helping people? Charity is not economics. Charity is not practiced because of incentives.

The economics class failed because it was an academic environment where individual effort is graded. The moment that grading system became a collective system instead of an individual system the natural proclivity was to sink to the level of the lowest common denominator. Individual effort no longer had any value. Your assumptions about study groups is a hypothetical, and as hypothetical situations often are, they are not situational circumstances that describe a practical world, but instead describe a world that most people would not even experience.

One of the most famous hypothetical situations is the three men in a two man boat hypothetical. The hypothetical is presented to demonstrate that morality is a luxury, but this hypothetical always falls short in its demonstration, or misses the boat, if you will. They hypothetical wants to assume that the only option is tossing one man overboard so that two may survive. Of course, that is not the only option, and each man can take turns swimming until all are saved, or one drowns. Such an option allows for a moral choice. The same problem with this hypothetical is found in your hypothetical.

In your hypothetical all classmates organize a study group solely for the purpose of maintaining a good grade for the class. However, study groups are usually available for students who find a class difficult, and there are usually students who understand the class that make themselves available to students who don't. This is not a hypothetical I am presenting but reality. Study groups do exist, and there are students who do well who help students who do not. However, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Your hypothetical assumes everyone would show up and make the necessary effort to do well in order to gain a collective good grade. In reality, this will not happen, and some students just will not make the effort. Those students will bring the collective grade down.

In sports, it is often said that there is no I in team. However, a team is not a group of any individuals who want to be a part of that team. A team consists of the most athletic individuals in sports. It is the individual abilities that dictate who gets on the team and who does not. That is reality. In the class you demand an explanation for their failure, this reality does not exist. The "team" is stuck with all members of the class, not just the elite.




So, the problem here, and especially in this thread, is that many people seem to be of the mindset that everyone should support themselves and that no one should take responsibility for anyone else.


The problem with your post is your gross over generalizations. You hope to frame advocates of free markets and capitalism as an every man for themselves scenario, but this is not what I am getting from this thread at all, unless we are to take your word for it, but let's be honest here; you claim humans won't help each other, I refute that, you dismiss the refutation and go right back to arguing that humans won't help each other. Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
History tells me that the reason all past systems have failed (Slave, Feudal, Capitalist, Socialist, Communist) is people. Capitalism is failing and no point in trying to pass it off as crony capitalism being at fault because it's just the endgame of a system that rewards that behaviour. Big Business (who were little business but got lucky/knew the right people) used their wealth to reduce competition and accelerate their profitability. All the time that UK and US workers were riding high, it was at the expense of workers/poor in other parts of the world but even that died as soon as the threat of socialist revolution was negated.

Russian socialism/communism failed because it turned into Stalinism so instead of a truly classless, democratic, communist society that sought to raise the quality of life for everyone internationally, they wound up with an elite bureaucracy that imposed its will upon the worker class. Everywhere else that socialism reared it's head, the capitalist and the Stalinist used every trick in the book to subvert it thereby protecting their status quo.

Jean Paul Zodeaux poses the question

you fail to explain how it is this wealth will be created, and how it is everyone will maintain such wealth. Some people save money, others squander it. Would you, in your co-operative society of forced equality, criminalize the squandering of wealth? Just where will you draw the line?


In a true socialist democracy, the people would decide the rules, the limits and more importantly what "wealth" is needed and sustainable. In capitalism, social structure is based on what is being produced and the means of trade. No thought is given to the needs of society, just whether or not profit can be made. Would socialist do a better job of protecting the earth from unnecessary pillage and destruction? People would probably still get in the way but at least the system would be based on the right principle.

In the end, it's not a question of whether socialism would fail or not. Capitalism is already failing for 90% of the world's population. Some of us can see the end coming, some of us have already been ejected from the system but a great many somehow still think that they're safe but will get a huge wake-up before too long. Either Capitalism dies or most of the world's population. Already 30,000 children are dying daily around the world due to preventable causes (mostly lack of clean water) and I suspect an equal number of adults can easily be added to this daily tragedy so don't think I'm farfetched in my statement.

And this is my answer to all of you who seem to focus on this idea of some people sponging off the system. Have you ever seen a truly democratic socialist/communist state? (If so, please let me know where it is!) Have you seen how such a state deals with people who don't pull their weight? I haven't but I have seen how two countries deal with this problem. The USA which had a temporary safety net for those who fall out of the system and the UK which has a long-term safety net. From what I've seen, the UK dropouts get benefits that meet their basic subsistence needs (food, housing, education, health). In the US, they get the street and possibly food stamps. The dropouts are still there but which one's are more likely to mug you or burgle your house while you're out?


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by SugarCube
Of course socialism has been debated for a millennium, for that is the only place for socialism; in debate. In the world of practicality socialism can not work without regulators imposing their regulations.


Jean Paul Zodeaux - You speak quite a lot of truth but seem to fail to realise that you're arguing against yourself. Every system known to me has required regulators imposing their regulations. The form of regulator and regulation may have changed over the centuries but the affect is the same - Tying up the masses so that they cannot successfully challenge the ruling class. The Roman Catholic church managed to rule for 1000+ years by keeping the masses dumbed down and weighed down with restrictions and regulations. The US has a similar method embodied in the tons of complicated IRS rules that favours the elite corporations.




...Socialism has no concern with how wealth is created, only that it be spread evenly...


You must be reading different sources than what I am cause every socialist organisation that I've read up on has definite views on this subject. For one, they all keep repeating this mantra about "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability!" That doesn't translate into spreading wealth evenly.

My £0.02 worth. Thanks and good night!



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yup, definitely obtuse this afternoon...

You'll have to forgive me if I miss anything which you regard as crucial, your post is long and I suspect that the seeds of discussion sown thus far risk growing into a rambling morass of weeds.


The law you are referring to can only work when that body of law is a collection of laws that protect the rights of the individual.

I am referring to law in a general sense, clearly there are many sub divisions, contract law, publishing law, etc., however, when you write, "the law that you are referring to" it obfuscates the simple point I am making.

Law must protect individuals, of course, but it must also protect legal entities and the state itself (e.g. trying to defraud a company or treason). The rules in place to protect an individual must also be balanced against the need to maintain a functional society. Testimony is irrelevant, that simply accords an account of circumstances and events to a scenario whereby the legitimacy of the situation has been called into question by virtue of breaking prohibition or exceeding permission.

Law is not self-evident. Some of the worst atrocities in history have been committed under guise of 'self evident law' which actually translates to 'we can make it up as we go along to suit our own purposes' - therefore, laws have to be defined and the ideal is to make them immutable within the context of achieving the protection of society. This does not mean that they can never change, it just means that they are not changed on a whim.

Laws are necessary to define freedoms, whether directly or indirectly, by omission or by expression - 'due process of law' means to assess a charge of a crime which by default may be construed as an act contrasting with prohibited/permitted behaviour defined by law in the generic sense.


All other rules dictating usage of roads are not law, but merely legislation

Let us not get uptight about the semantics of 'legislation' and 'law' where the generally accepted understanding is quite adequate. The point you are making is wholly irrelevant and represents academic charlatanism.


justice is the act of being just or fair

To whom? Clearly, justice is subjective, there is no argument. Justice may only be deemed as definitive within a normalised view of society. You might consider chopping off the hands of a thief as just and fair... the thief probably doesn't think so. So who do we ask 'what is fair'? We're only left with that homogeneous society that you seem to despise. How shall we audit society's considerations? A metaphorical litmus test each morning at court or shall we write them down as 'laws' over a period of time, assessing the balanced needs of the atomic entities within society? (Notwithstanding the applicability of 'legislation', of course!)


you claim your non-ideological equality of wealth is necessary

Please do try to read my posts properly... As I clearly refuted earlier, I do not advocate an equality of wealth and have no "Marxist" agenda. You seem fixated on this. I only have 8000 characters to respond with and clarifying a point that you have neglected to read properly simply wastes them.

You did make another statement about 'legislation' as opposed to 'law' but the point is irrelevant. Try to stay on topic.

I effectively said "natural law is a product of society", you said...

Uh-huh. Tell that to the virus that invades your body. Try explaining to a bear in hibernation in its cave the concept that all property is theft, or explain to a black widow spider that there are normalized rules of co-operation, see how far that gets you. Natural law extends well beyond the production of "society", and you give "society" too much credit.


Listen carefully, you can hear the 'Family Fortunes' "Uh-Uhhhh". The virus that invades your body has no interest in whether the death of the host makes it a criminal infectious agent. Why would I be interested in explaining Natural Law to a bear? Why would the bear give a toot? Your point is meandering again, yet you confirm my own statement by implying that the interpretation of Natural Law is specific to humans, which, gosh, live in societies, ergo, "Natural Law is a product of society". That is to say, the commonly accepted definition of Natural Law is provided within the context of a society - If beheading is readily accepted as a form of 'punishment' for a culture, then that defines the Natural Law within that context. A different society may reject that viewpoint. Natural Law is subject to cultural interpretation which in turn is subordinate to society.


So too are the inalienable rights of people

There are no inalienable rights of people - only what society defines and tries to impose. That concept is entirely irrelevant to the laws of gravitation which define a mathematical principle for the effect of a naturally occurring phenonema. They are completely different things. You are meandering again. The virus, the bear and the black widow spider have no other choice but to live by the laws of gravity. A person can choose to live outside of society's laws. Weirdly, you are forgetting your own posts - you made the point that laws do not prevent people from undertaking actions which may be perceived as crimes.


Governments were formed to establish justice

Nonsense. Not in the way that you perceive. Governments were formed to implement a system of governance, of control. These names have been bandied about before... Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot. They formed governments without the merest notion of what you perceive as justice.


Laws are discovered not invented

I'll be fair here because there is a real opportunity to be facetious. Simply, laws are invented to support a method of control roughly defined by popular opinion (i.e. common interpretation of natural law) or by the wishes of a small group of dictatorial leaders usually on ideological grounds.


The black market functions through co-operation. Would you call the black market a system of normalization?

Of course it is. It normalises supply and demand and is predicated on the restriction of supply via laws. The law denormalises in these circumstances and the black market takes the opportunity to try and (re)normalise it. It doesn't necessarily achieve normalisation but it attempt to do so.


Surely if "normalization" is to be given any credence at all, then a standard definition of the word would be in order, don't you think?

Facetious. I had refrained, even though you got me first. Now, you know what I mean and I know what I mean... the general readership knows what I mean, but I'll say it anyway: To bring to a regular state of affairs, without undue emphasis, whether by omission or inclusion. Normal may be defined statistically but may also be referenced by Natural Law and Observation is subject to the opinion of the society affected therein.

I'll summarise here because you covered a lot of ground where one sentence would do... I think I've been fair in the quote.


Equality becomes what you declare equality to be

Nope. I clearly refuted that earlier and have indicated many times that equality must be defined as a function of society and the laws that are derived therein - which also touches my previous point about the non-existence of inalienable rights.


Defense of the weak requires declaring someone weak in order to defend them. What of the strong? Do they not deserve defense as well?

Quite correct, it requires definition and does not preclude the strong or the fair-to-middling parts of society. Clearly, I cannot detail a complete manifesto here on ATS so I was remiss in my earlier scope

cont



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

I would suggest you are a little too obsessed with declaring other people weak. We help who needs help regardless of their strengths or weaknesses

When the light is off, the light is dim. When the strong are needy, then they may be perceived as weak. Again, semantics. Am I trying to categorise the needy and weak as snivelling gutter snipes begging for old chicken bones to boil up a meagre broth? Of course not! Don't be ridiculous.

Most people need 'help' at some point. There are degrees of help, however, a multi-millionaire who spends 6 months of the year sunning in the Bahamas on his yacht probably shouldn't have a government handout to help to pay for the winter fuel bills of his five houses. Or perhaps I am at odds with the common denominator of society there? Perhaps my obsessions cloud my clarity?

Charity... Charity is not definable per se. Note the emphasis via italics. So 'charity' does 'its' thing and helps the needy (whether weak or strong, poverty stricken or millionaires). Then something happens, the organised charity has to cut back because they need to invest money rather than give it away (it happens, but with the right objective in mind). The global downturn affects people's finance and they cannot freely give as much. What do you know, the needy go short.

Is 'charity' definable? Sure, you did a marvellous job of utilising the cut & paste functions. However, you missed the point entirely. Charity has no obligation - it is entirely voluntary and does not provide for a organised infrastructure for support of the needy. I shouldn't have to explain that any further, I really shouldn't.


Is that what you are advocating, regulatory agencies that impose rules on people as to what they can and cannot do, and how much they can and cannot make?

Ahhh, the struggling business person who wants to make it big... why shouldn't they? Fair dues to the hard worker who does well and earns their money! Should that business person make money by lying and cheating? Tough luck to the suckers who get caught? Yeah, we don't need regulations. Chief executive of a major sportswear company getting millions whilst sweatshop workers out of sight and out of mind get worked to death... literally... yeah, who needs oversight agencies?

As I have written many times, regulations should be in place to protect, citizens, legal entities and state without an excess of authority... a balance in terms of society. Without them, people will suffer. You seem to want it all ways. You want a free society where inalienable rights are protected but without a definition of what those rights are... just a whim of the moment.


If a regulator is to have any authority over those being regulated then necessarily those being regulated are not on an equal par with the regulator

Nonsense, again. It is the regulations that are adhered to, not the word of the regulator. The regulations should be defined by due process according to the protection of blah blah blah. Audit of the application of regulations gives no more 'authority' to an 'inspector' than the person being inspected. The rules are either adhered to or they are not. Regardless of misuse of powers, a police officer doesn't make the law even though he/she has the authority to arrest you.


Appropriate law? How about everyone adhere to law

Yes, finally we have some sort of agreement. Yes! The only point of contention is that you believe in inalienable rights even though they do not exist. Just because we don't want it to be so, it doesn't make it a 'right' not to have it happen. The Natural Law you alluded to earlier dictates that the strong may subjugate the weak... Natural Law... however, we clearly try to restrict that particular application of Natural Law in human society.


The system you are advocating is being implemented

Yes, it is, but the implementation is not valid in our societies, hence my repeated point that the concept is correct but the implementation is not necessarily correct.

Also, regarding the point concerning capitalism, yes, the regulations in place have massively distorted the free market and it no longer functions as a benefit to society. On these points I entirely agree.


Your games of semantics do nothing to define what it is you claim requires definition

"Needy"... "basic levels [of sustenance]" I think they are pretty straight-forward terms. They're in my original post and I referenced the points a couple of times. Clearly, in a society that has a state infrastructure that supports the 'needy', we must define who actually is 'needy' (refer to the millionaire with the five houses). When that infrastructure gives support, clearly we need to define 'what kind' and 'how much' of that support is actually given. Obvious from my original post. Try rereading it

BTW, love the use of 'tautology', you threw that in there right at the end you cheeky so-and-so... Pity it wasn't relevant though, since I made it clear what I was saying the first time around.

Just to clarify, I do not have in my possession a complete and detailed manifesto for change in our modern societies. I was simply passing comment on an ATS thread rather than trying to attract support for a new political party...



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Well each worker would have a boss for one thing. It's not like any was ensuring that each one study. But regardless you can't translate one class into something as large as an economic system. Capitalism would have similar bad effects as well in such a class, the owners wouldn't work and the workers would do all the labor.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Seems to miss real world examples like Canada that had actually did well during the economic crisis dispite having neighboured the poor performer of the US.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by UsernameCory
Seems to miss real world examples like Canada that had actually did well during the economic crisis dispite having neighboured the poor performer of the US.

So what is Canada doing now ?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 

Great post.
In general, socialism is self defeating, as your illustration shows.
However, unabashed capitalism also results in devastation of wealth for the vast majority of people. All you need to do, to prove that, is play a game of Monopoly. Eventually, one player ends up with all the money, all the houses and hotels, and everyone else goes bankrupt. That is analogous to the situation that the US is very close to.
Having said that, I abhor socialism, as it does destroy incentive, and also degrades human dignity. Both systems, unabashed socialism and unabashed capitalism are destructive.
As Aristotle said, "Everything in moderation" .



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


Because clearly a controlled classroom setting is going to imitate real life..

Yup. makes perfect sense.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


You are right, the part of socialism that depends on people to work is flawed, but there is a better part of socialism that could work.

The part I like about socialism is the sharing of resources. Right now the oil, gold etc is owned by corporations, don't tell me that the US couldn't drill for oil without BP, exxon etc. Why should others get rich of the resources of a country.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Right because charity hospitals would work in this day and age. You have to realize the advances in medicine compared to 50 years ago are quite phenomonal. And something a private charity could have never supported.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I get tired of these Socialism vs Capitalism threads (yes I know the OP is only about the failure of Socialism) - but these threads always turn into one verses the other.

We need something NEW.

Even though I "lean" Socialist - - - I'm intelligent and logical enough to know it can only work in small groups where ALL are in agreement.

However - Capitalism - - is the Animalistic Survival of the Fittest.

Unless "we" are going to have engineered reproduction ensuring ALL offspring are superior equal beings - - Capitalism is not realistic either - - and will always eventually become Corporate Fascism like we have today.

We need something New - - that incorporates what works from past experiences to include ALL humans.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by MysterE
 

Great post.

NOT!!!


In general, socialism is self defeating, as your illustration shows.

No. It's a NIST-quality argument that's already been trounced in this thread and wouldn't dare raise its head in serious debate. Life is not a roomful of students who get the same grade regardless of how they perform.


However, unabashed capitalism also results in devastation of wealth for the vast majority of people. All you need to do, to prove that, is play a game of Monopoly. Eventually, one player ends up with all the money, all the houses and hotels, and everyone else goes bankrupt. That is analogous to the situation that the US is very close to.

The US has done very well out of capitalism so far and are only just starting to feel the downside of this system that the third world have suffered for centuries. The Monopoly game is not played within national borders. This is evidenced by the US-led demolition of the Mexican agricultural industry which resulted in dislocated farmers/farm labourers having no choice but to work in the slave-labor factories set up on the border by US corporations. Fair-paid US jobs disappeared, slave-wage Mexican jobs created! But that's just an obvious example. You have to look a lot deeper to see the affect on places like Haiti, Panama, Deigo Garcia, etc.


Having said that, I abhor socialism, as it does destroy incentive, and also degrades human dignity. Both systems, unabashed socialism and unabashed capitalism are destructive.

Such extreme pontification is becoming more typical on ATS. The world is replete with examples of the destructive power of capitalism but I'm still finding it hard to find any real examples of true socialism. Where is your evidence that socialism destroys incentive and degrades human dignity? Is it the socialised education and health that Venezualans are benefiting from since Chavez was voted into power? Perhaps it's the socialised education and health that the UK benefitted from until Thatcher started whittling away at it.

Maybe it's not the socialism that destroys incentive and degrades human dignity but rather the capitalist destruction of jobs in constant search of greater profitability regardless of the personal, social or environmental damage. This in turn leaves otherwise normal people mired in the despair of circumstances that they didn't create and cannot fix within the capitalist system and therefore reliant on the meagre handouts of the state. They can't eat "trickle-down theory" rhetoric.

The capitalists complain loudly about the safety-net socialist programs within their countries but it's all show. They know that it's only these programs that keep the level of despondency thin enough to prevent the dispossessed from organising effectively and revolting against the system. If the masses around the world realise that they're only starving because they cannot afford their part of the food mountain and then realise that together they can do something about it, that's when the SHTF moment will arrive.

Which comes full circle to this thread which is basically saying - Don't even try socialism/communism because it is doomed to failure!



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Even though I "lean" Socialist - - - I'm intelligent and logical enough to know it can only work in small groups where ALL are in agreement.

Perhaps the time has come to put your intelligence and logic aside. It's readily recognised in Trotskyist circles that Socialism/Communism can only work on an International basis. A bit of Trotsky reading is called for to get a better understanding of how capitalism and socialism cannot coexist successfully. Then you'll find how Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" turned into a elite bureaucracy that subjugated the worker's rights and needs to the desires of the new bureaucrats.



Unless "we" are going to have engineered reproduction ensuring ALL offspring are superior equal beings - - Capitalism is not realistic either - - and will always eventually become Corporate Fascism like we have today.

We need something New - - that incorporates what works from past experiences to include ALL humans.


And this is where I add my plug for the ZeitGeist Movement. Something different!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 





Yup, definitely obtuse this afternoon...


I let the obtuse crack go the first time. I will not let it go this time. Your arrogance is unseemly, especially given your complete and total disregard for the rights of individuals. Arrogance in general, arrogance meaning a presumption of knowledge, is unseemly, but your presumptions are based on nothing more than disregard for others. If some one doesn't agree with you, then you will make cracks about their intellect, as if only you and those who agree with you possess the correct knowledge to understand life.

This attitude is the same as all collectivists. Individualism is reviled, and any individual who challenges the collective will be lectured and informed that they are being "obtuse". You are not an intellectual, you have merely hijacked the term and hope to make it seem as if you are an intellectual by blathering endlessly, regardless of how nonsensical your blather becomes.




I am referring to law in a general sense, clearly there are many sub divisions, contract law, publishing law, etc., however, when you write, "the law that you are referring to" it obfuscates the simple point I am making.


It is not I obfuscating but you, and this is why you will only speak to the law in general, and it is so you can make ridiculous statements such as this:




Law is not self-evident.


and this:




Testimony is irrelevant


and this:




'due process of law' means to assess a charge of a crime which by default may be construed as an act contrasting with prohibited/permitted behaviour defined by law in the generic sense.


You hope to mystify law, but all you accomplish is prevarication. Law is self evident. No one needs explanation as to why murder, theft and rape are wrong. No one needs explanation as to why they have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. People understand this, no matter how obtuse you think they are.

You claim that "some of the worst atrocities in have been committed under the guise of self evident law" but typical refuse to cite any historical context for this claim. "We can make it up as we go along" is what you are advocating, make no mistakes about that. Their is no "guise" of self evidence, what is self evident is self evident. Only an arrogant fool would presume that people do not inherently understand they have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Only an arrogant fool would suggest that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are simply just grants given by rulers, and the populace who has been granted these privileges should count themselves as lucky.

Under your explanation of law, and normalization Spartacus was an outlaw, and a rogue who deserved his persecution and prosecution. After all, Spartacus was a slave, and under the normalization of the society in which he was a slave, he was "legally" so. This is your concept of law, where any society that deems it normal can enslave others. This is your arrogance. Of course, I am being obtuse, so why would you listen?




therefore, laws have to be defined and the ideal is to make them immutable within the context of achieving the protection of society.


You hope to have people believe that you are not a collectivist, but time and time again, you hold the law up as that which protects society, and merely pay lip service to the rights of individuals with empty rhetoric such as this:




Law must protect individuals, of course, but it must also protect legal entities and the state itself (e.g. trying to defraud a company or treason). The rules in place to protect an individual must also be balanced against the need to maintain a functional society. Testimony is irrelevant, that simply accords an account of circumstances and events to a scenario whereby the legitimacy of the situation has been called into question by virtue of breaking prohibition or exceeding permission.


In your world the individual is subset to the state, and even "legal entities". You hope to justify this by asserting that treason and fraud are crimes that can only happen to the state or companies, and by company, you mean "legal entities". You continue with your nonsense by asserting that testimony is irrelevant, which only contradicts your assertion that treason is a crime that must be prosecuted. Under The Constitution for the United States, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, that Constitution is quite clear on how the crime of treason will be prosecuted:


Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


~The Constitution for the United States of America; Article III, Section 3~

Where the Constitution is very clear and expressly demands that testimony is relevant, you arrogantly declare it irrelevant, and presumably find the Constitution to be as obtuse as you find me to be. Indeed, this Constitution for the United States of America is no doubt a great thorn in the side of your demented ideology, which would explain your obvious ignorance of it. After all, why become intimate with knowledge that clearly and undeniably refutes your assertions?




Laws are necessary to define freedoms, whether directly or indirectly, by omission or by expression - 'due process of law' means to assess a charge of a crime which by default may be construed as an act contrasting with prohibited/permitted behaviour defined by law in the generic sense.


I have bolded what I have in the above quote of yours to re-iterate how adamant you are about freedom being merely a grant by government. You have no more regard for freedom than any other petty tyrant, and would insist that freedom can only exist when it is granted by legislation. Laws do not define freedom, freedom defines laws. What people do in order to protect and ensure their lives, they do by right. Liberty is law, not defined by law. What people do that causes no other harm, outside of self defense of life, loved ones, or property, they do by right. If pursuit of happiness causes no other harm, then that pursuit is done by right. This is freedom, what you are advocating is something else entirely.

Further, your absurd definition of due process of law, again ignores what has been defined by Constitution.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


~4th Amendment~


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


~5th Amendment~


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


~6th Amendment~

This is due process of law, and where it was once considered that such due process only spoke to the federal government, the 14th Amendment was passed to make clear that the states were as subject to due process of law as the federal government was. These Amendments do not grant any individual rights, but instead prohibit government from acting in anyway outside of what has been clearly defined. Due process was not created to protect the state, it was written to make clear that individuals have the right to be protected from the state.

Your demented ideology can not exist as long as The Constitution for the United States still stands as the Supreme Law of the Land, and this is no doubt why you ignore it in favor of your ideology, and ironically, where you speak to the whimsical nature of legislation, it would be by your whims that your demented ideology would be imposed upon people and declared normalization. Under equal protection of the law, people who do not want anything to do with your demented ideology do not have to participate, and can, by right, act according to their own beliefs, regardless of how much of a majority may be on your side, and regardless of how desperately you would declare these people obtuse.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join