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: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Thanks for that link concerning the ZeitGeist Movement. I think that it is worth reproducing their stated goal here:


Reproduced from www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...

We intend to restore the fundamental necessities and environmental awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually. The central insights of this awareness is the recognition of the Emergent and Symbiotic elements of natural law and how aligning with these understandings as the bedrock of our personal and social institutions, life on earth can and will flourish into a system which will continuously grow in a positive way, where negative social consequences, such as social stratification, war, biases, elitism and criminal activity will be constantly reduced and, idealistically, eventually become nonexistent within the spectrum of human behavior itself.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Come along now, you're taking this a little bit too seriously. This is ATS and just because Martin Luther is revered it doesn't make the 'Rights of Man' valid outside of the scope of a society that accepts it.

Of course I was having a 'crack, it is simple gamesmanship, I'm having some fun on ATS not arguing for my life! I have not made cracks per se about your intellect, only about your posts and points that I disagree with (and agree with at times!). My statement to the effect that you were being obtuse was an indictment of your demeanour, not your intellect.

To respond, it is you that has made the assumptions all along:


- "your complete and total disregard for the rights of individuals"
- "If some one doesn't agree with you, then you will make cracks about their intellect"
- "This attitude is the same as all collectivists"
- etc.


They are rather bold statements and my posts do not reflect this attitude at all. I have indicated that the laws of society must be balance with the rights of individuals, I have not denigrated your intellect at any point, only your posts, I have stated regularly that I am not a 'collectivist'. Also, at no point have I aspired to present myself as an 'intellectual' - that is the domain of 'wanna-be' academics who present themselves as philosophical giants. I am simply posting my own opinions on an ATS forum. You just happen to take umbrage at the fact that I disagree with your posts.


this is why you will only speak to the law in general
We're on ATS... a discussion board... should we really be delving into the minutiae of law when broad strokes will suffice to clarify a statement. I have indicated the necessity of developing laws that protect individuals in balance with the state, I hardly need to supply a volume of materials with margin notes indicating where it has to change.


Law is self evident. No one needs explanation as to why murder, theft and rape are wrong
Not correct. You believe these things to be wrong because society has taught you that belief and because you happen to have an internal moral barometer. There are plenty of people who perform the actions of killing, forcing sexual intercourse and taking other people's possessions all the time without necessarily thinking that they are doing something wrong. To protect society from this point of view, we need laws to clarify that these things are behaviourally unacceptable and accord them appropriate names: murder, rape and theft.


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
If you don't have any reference books, the internet is available to you... Look up Nazi Germany "The People's Court". Don't just rely on Wiki, read up on it properly...


Only an arrogant fool would presume that people do not inherently understand they have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness
Your statement is overly idealistic. People 'want' the right but that doesn't mean that they 'have' the right. Also, when should these rights be compromised? If you have the right to liberty - an inalienable right, then are you suggesting that people should not be imprisoned for crimes defined within the law? Is the right to liberty simply an ideal?


Spartacus was an outlaw
Correct. The problem is that you assume (again) that just because I see the need for laws, I necessarily agree with every decision take to establish guilt. Spartacus was an outlaw but he was also a hero of the people for standing up against oppression. At no point have I stated that laws reflect what is 'correct', only, what is 'prohibited/permissible'. Society should defined these laws, but clearly, there are times when laws are passed purely to control society and against its best interests on the whim of a few people.


In your world the individual is subset to the state, and even "legal entities".
State, Entities, Individuals... 3 words, 6 word order combinations, I happened to use the combination that reflected an ascension of size... That doesn't mean that I believe individuals to be subordinate to the state hence my use of the word "balanced".


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
Incorrect, this is becoming a bad habit... Treason is defined within law... I know of no nation that defines treason as a crime against an individual per se - a crime against certain individuals (e.g. the Queen of England) can be construed as treason but this is because the Queen represents the state, ergo, a crime against her is a crime against the state. As for fraud... I was merely using an example. Do you expect a specific example for everything indicated? Fraud against 'companies' does not preclude fraud against individuals or even the state. Testimony is irrelevant in terms of the definition of what a crime is. Testimony is used in defence/proof of whether a crime has been committed, not to define the crime in the first place.


Laws are necessary to define freedoms - 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.
We live in society, society is governed to maintain a sustainable infrastructure, that infrastructure is used to define laws, if you break those laws and commit a crime then your freedoms will be limited. Laws may define permissible activity, or prohibited activities, they define freedoms by inclusion or exclusion within the context of society. You "are" free unless you break laws defined by government which in an ideal world, reflects the common interpretation of 'natural law' within society, or at least the essence of that law. Unfortunately, since natural law is ambiguous at best, we're left with a 'common denominator' of opinion emanating from that collective known as society.


Your demented ideology
I just had to include this quote, fantastic. However, I have not espoused support for an ideology, I have merely indicated the status quo and the necessity to certain structures to uphold the rule of law.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by SugarCube]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


Socialism does work it's a democratic process though the differences in left/ middle and right wong socialism are marked enough to assume right wing socialism is more in tune with conservatism. On the other hand communisim as am ideology is great, but in practice it can't work as has been proved round the world. The great flaw of communism is failure to look at human psychology which is to gather, rule, protect and challenge. It also overlooks the nature of greed and selfishness in humans, a trait we all have to some degree. principle of communism is to share equally amongst the workers and leaders, that has never and will never happen without some form of corruption involved.

On the other hand socialism accepts capitalism but believes in the rights of all to receive rewards of labour, to have say in the system and to protect the vulnerable. Socialism is democracy.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by PsychoX42
Actually, right now its capitalism that is failing. Unless you haven't already noticed.

But, I am not a supporter of any of the isms. I support common sense, and, anything that is currency based lacks this essential feature.

Namaste and Love


Capitalism does not involve government being responsible for 40% of GDP spending.

Capitalism does not involve central banks setting interest rates.

Capitalism does not involve 23.7 trillion in banker bailouts.

Capitalism does not involve millions of pages of government regulation.

Do you know what does involve those things?

Fascism.

Claiming this economy is a failure of capitalism could only come from someone who was educated in a publicly run school.


None of the things listed are a product of fascism either.

Point blank capitalism is a only the strong survive economic model. Is this what you would advocate? Unless i'm mistaken, that is the model that most of nature runs, as in the jungle.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
reply to post by PsychoX42
 


I don't think it is capitalism that is failing, I believe it is this psudo capitalist-socialist-fascist program we are currently running.

What is wrong with rewarding the people who work hardest?

-E-


How many millionaires work harder than say a ditch digger or roofer? So what is wrong with rewarding the people that work the hardest?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
One can hardly argue that bleeding of American jobs to third world countries, shutdown of the American manufacturing sector and deregulation of financial services were diabolical handiwork of hardcore socialists in the US government.

On the contrary, these three components of the predicament we find ourselves in are a direct application of capitalism values -- deregulation and free trade. I'm going to translate this for you -- the country has been raped and left bleeding on the floor, by the purist capitalist types.



You make a excellent point concerning capitalism. Capitalism has got us where we are currently. In the name of business, it is cheaper to outsource all of the jobs to poorer countries where people will work for 5 cents per hour. Employees in America can never compete with that.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 


Excellent post and exactly what I inform those who oppose socialism.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by spacekc929
 


On a personal note, I have had the profound privilege of making some wonderful friends in this site. A few months back I was chatting with another member on Skype, and she asked me how my new business was going. I wound up confessing that business had been bad and I was stressed out about paying the rent, of which I had fallen behind on. She and I have never met personally, only know each other from this site, but had become fast friends. She wound up sending money to pay my rent, and actually sent me enough to to eat as well. I did not ask for this help, she simply just did it. I am forever humbled by her kindness.

Business is still sketchy for me in this current economy, but I still have a business because people do help other people. They absolutely, unquestionably and irrefutably do.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]


The point is, how would you like to RELY on someone being generous enough to give you something? That's the problem with charities, you have to hope someone will help you. I'm sorry but I don't want to wake up each morning "hoping" someone will provide me with something to eat!

What if the person who helped you pay rent, decided she only wanted to give you a quarter of what you needed? Would you then "hope" someone else could help you with the rest?

This is why charity has to be structured and regulated. Someone can't eat a hope.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I will probably get flamed for mentioning Biblical principles as any philosophy except those derived from the Bible seem to get a fair hearing.  

The following are some quick ideas I got from reading the Bible:

1. Working is good, laziness is bad.
2.  Usury is bad, being productive is good.
3. Oppressing the poor and weak is bad, generosity is good.
4. Coveting what belongs to others is bad.  Helping those in need is good.
5.  Thinking too highly of ones self is bad, remembering  the one from whom all blessings flow is good.
6. Unjust weights and measures bad, treating others as we want to be treated good.
7. It's never wrong to do right.

I could keep going but the bottom line is fairness, humbleness and generosity are individual acts and can't be legislated.  If individuals acted accordingly, the greedy of the "left" and the "right" would lose their influence.

 



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 





Come along now, you're taking this a little bit too seriously. This is ATS and just because Martin Luther is revered it doesn't make the 'Rights of Man' valid outside of the scope of a society that accepts it.


I am well aware that you do not take inalienable rights seriously, and the more you insist on dismissing them as valid, the more you reveal yourself to be the petty tyrant you are. Indeed, nothing could be more damning of the Zeitgeist Movement than the words of its supporters.

Your idolatry of society would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous. Your ignorance of history makes you blind to the fact that the Revolution for Independence in 1776 was a war fought by colonies of England, a society that did not accept as valid the inalienable rights of individuals, and the colonists told England to piss off, just as Spartacus told the Roman Republic to piss off. No doubt you have no respect for this, but be rest assured that those who cherish freedom have little respect for your empty rhetoric.




Of course I was having a 'crack, it is simple gamesmanship, I'm having some fun on ATS not arguing for my life! I have not made cracks per se about your intellect, only about your posts and points that I disagree with (and agree with at times!)


Inalienable rights should be taken seriously, and those who do not take them seriously risk loosing them. I do not need your agreement in order to know I have rights. All games come with winners and losers, and when it comes to rights, losing is not an option.




I have indicated that the laws of society must be balance with the rights of individuals, I have not denigrated your intellect at any point, only your posts, I have stated regularly that I am not a 'collectivist'.


Where you claim you have not denigrated my intellect, here are your words:




Gosh, you are feeling obtuse this evening...


And here:




Yup, definitely obtuse this afternoon...


Now you are backpedaling and it is not working, and all it is accomplishing is undermining your own credibility. So, when you claim that you have "indicated that the rights of individuals must be balanced with the laws of society", it is not a twisting of your words to understand that you are differentiating between inalienable rights and the laws of society. You wish to separate them, where I continue to insist that the only valid laws are those that protect the inalienable rights of individuals. There is no separation of rights of individuals and laws of society, both are one in the same. The Bill of Rights in the federal Constitution, and the Declaration of Rights found in all state constitutions support my assertions, not yours.

Further, when you claim to not be a collectivist I am tempted to listen for the crowing of the cock, as surely you hope to betray your own position simply because you are aware that collectivism is a pejorative among most people who cherish freedom. You can not have one foot in the door, and one foot out of the door and expect anyone to believe you are going somewhere. As long as you continue to hold up society as being more important than individuals, then you will continue to sound like a collectivist, and if it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck...




We're on ATS... a discussion board... should we really be delving into the minutiae of law when broad strokes will suffice to clarify a statement.


This is a discussion board that claims as its motto; "deny ignorance". I have all ready shown where your "broad strokes" regarding law have most certainly obfuscated the reality of law. If you want to remain ignorant this is your choice, after all, in spite of its motto, this is just a discussion board.




I have indicated the necessity of developing laws that protect individuals in balance with the state, I hardly need to supply a volume of materials with margin notes indicating where it has to change.


I have done more than indicate, I have flat out stated, and supported my statements with actual laws, that the rights of the individual are what matters. Your continued insistence that the rights of the individual must be balanced with the state is precisely why you have failed to supply any meaningful law that would support your contentions. The Bill of Rights have not been repealed, nor have they been struck down as unconstitutional under the authority of judicial review, and as such stand as law. Volumes of materials are not necessary.




Not correct. You believe these things to be wrong because society has taught you that belief and because you happen to have an internal moral barometer.


And here you reveal your whimsical nature. Where you would insist that society is what deems normalization, when it tickles your fancy, you will insist that what I see as self evident is really just what "society" has taught me. However, when I was in high school I was constantly at odds with my civic teacher having the same arguments I am having with you now. I continued these debates while in college with those professors, so if society has taught me this, why have they not taught my professors the same thing? Why has society not taught you this? Do you lack an internal moral barometer?




There are plenty of people who perform the actions of killing, forcing sexual intercourse and taking other people's possessions all the time without necessarily thinking that they are doing something wrong.


Prove it. What you are describing is a sociopath. How many constitutes plenty in your world? How many sociopaths are there? Prove this assertion of plenty of people who do not think they are doing something wrong. I dare you...I double dare you.

Plenty defined:


2. A large quantity or amount; an abundance:


Sociopath defined:


Antisocial Personality Disorder is also known as psychopathy or sociopathy. Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the feeling and welfare of others. As a clinical diagnosis it is usually limited to those over age 18. It can be diagnosed in younger people if the they commit isolated antisocial acts and do not show signs of another mental disorder.


An abundance of these people are there? Just how common are sociopaths?


HOW COMMON ARE THEY?

Some researchers say only about one percent of the general population are sociopaths. Others put the figure at three or four percent. The reason the estimates vary is first of all, not everyone has been tested, of course, but also because sociopathy is a sliding scale. A person can be very sociopathic or only slightly, and anywhere in between. It is a continuum. So how sociopathic does someone have to be before you call them a sociopath? That's a tough question and it is why the estimates vary.


In fairness to you this article does go on to state:


But clearly sociopaths are fairly common and not easy to detect.


However, in fairness to me, when the author of this article claims that "clearly sociopaths are fairly common..." it is not so clear if by this the author means that anywhere from 1 to 4% of the population constitutes common, or if the author is presuming based upon unspecified research that the numbers are actually higher, and since it is unspecified, how much higher these numbers might be, we can not know.

Wikipedia, citing as their source both Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) American Psychiatric Association (2000) - pages 645–650, and Internet Mental Health - antisocial personality disorder, offers this figure:


Antisocial personality disorder in the general population is about 3% in males and 1% in females.


In my double dare you prove there are many out there who don't view killing, theft, and rape as wrong, I remain confident that you will fail miserably in attempting to prove this assertion, and of course, this being a discussion board, it is fairly assumed you won't even bother to try. So, when you say:




To protect society from this point of view, we need laws to clarify that these things are behaviourally unacceptable and accord them appropriate names: murder, rape and theft.


This is just more nonsensical rhetoric that has no meaning, as no amount of legislation will prevent a sociopath from committing a crime. Hell, if it won't prevent people with moral barometers from committing crimes, how can you possibly believe it will prevent a sociopath from committing crimes. It is quite tedious going line by line refuting your silly nonsense, and what I have refuted here is more than enough to demonstrate just how adamant you are on remaining ignorant. If you honestly believe your ignorance will be read as valid argument, then I suppose you will continue to argue out of ignorance, and no amount of effort on my part will change that. You can lead a horse to water....



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Samuel8
 


I think those are good principles and may be found in many philosophies concerned with the function of society and I'm sure that your post will be accepted at face value without assuming a religiously themed undercurrent. There is much wisdom in The Bible regardless of a reader's religious convictions. unfortunately, this demonstrates that we are constrained by the same issues that have plagued mankind for thousands of years.

In spite of our perceived differences, I agree with many posters on here that would wish to recognition the ideals of 'rights of mankind' and coalesce them into a balanced vision of society, maintained and sustained by a balanced infrastructure. Throughout history, as societies have evolved, we have seen shifts in that 'balance' that have not been properly addressed and we face the consequences right now.

Clearly, we have to recognise the fault lines in our societies and try to correct them but 'tinkering' won't do it, we need something radical.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


Socialism as a form of government fails yes, using some social constructs within a different type of governmental framework can be very positive. Look around you, social schools, social policing, social fire services and social libraries. In the UK of course we also have social medicine and we are very fond of it.

To demonise socialism as a form of government is fine because it sucks, to destroy all ideas and aspects of socialism is utterly foolish as they exist within most western governments.

As for out of work benefits well consider this.

If such benefits did not exist and people cannot get jobs then they are pretty much forced into crime. By providing benefits you can help reduce crime, which reduces needed pirson places, which reduces taxes overall as less are spent on prisons, police and other such things.

This is not to mention the disabled who, without benefits may very well just ed up dying from starvation. If anyone thinks that is ok then they're a rather horrid individual.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Excuse me while I wipe your spittle flecked vitriol off the screen. You have a real bee in your bonnet that prevents you from discussing these things calmly and with a sense of proportion. This ATS discussion is not going to change the world. We are simply exchanging views and it would be at least courteous if you would read my stated opinions rather than selecting specific sentences out of context to fuel the fire of your indignation and, frankly, rage...

Calm down.


I am well aware that you do not take inalienable rights seriously, and the more you insist on dismissing them as valid, the more you reveal yourself to be the petty tyrant you are
Yet again I find myself having to correct you... I didn't say that I don't take inalienable rights seriously, I simply stated that they require definition and even then, are not 'inalienable' per se but simply an idealistic acme that we may strive to implement. Simply have the 'right to life' doesn't stop somebody from shooting you.


Your idolatry of society would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous
Again, an entirely invalid accusation. Society exists whether you choose to label it as a 'virtual classification' or not. Any notable grouping of people with a common purpose may be termed as a society, even if that common purpose is simply 'living peacefully side by side'. To ignore the 'elephant in the room' is absurd. I don't idolise society, I simply accept that it exists as an, admittedly amorphous, entity.


Your ignorance of history makes you blind to the fact that the Revolution for Independence in 1776 was a war fought by colonies of England
Where have I shown any ignorance of history? The war was based on the acceptance of the validity of the idealistic concepts within that society - the English didn't think so. How does that then make those rights inalienable? Does it require more than one person? Does it require all members of society? It is always subjective and in order to resolve that idealistic subjectivity it needs to be defined. I have never said anything else.


Inalienable rights should be taken seriously, and those who do not take them seriously risk loosing them. I do not need your agreement in order to know I have rights. All games come with winners and losers, and when it comes to rights, losing is not an option.
Just as I have agreed with specific points that you have made before, so I agree with this point, in the context that 'inalienable rights' have to be defined and then preserved.


Where you claim you have not denigrated my intellect, here are your words: "Gosh, you are feeling obtuse this evening"
That is not denigrating your intellect, that is commenting on your demeanour - two very different things. Since you have displayed a proclivity to be "Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand" then it is valid to suggest that you have been obtuse. Where is the argument. I can cut & paste your comments to 'buddhasystem' and to me as evidence but the posts are there for all to see (e.g. accusing me of being a tyrant, ignorant of history etc.).


Now you are backpedaling and it is not working, and all it is accomplishing is undermining your own credibility
Back-pedalling would imply that I have recanted a previous statement or opinion. I have not done that. I continue to present and clarify my case in the face of your muddled understanding. I'm not trying to convert to, that should be clear, I am simply putting my opinion across.


you are differentiating between inalienable rights and the laws of society
Correct. Those 'inalienable rights' need to be defined as I have said many times and enacted such that they are in balance with society. If I have an 'inalienable' right to liberty then I can correctly do everything in my power to prevent imprisonment, regardless of the crime I have committed. I made this point. That is why we need to encapsulate the needs and rights of individuals in the context of society - how our individual freedoms may be compromised by the needs of other members of society and in terms of society itself.


As long as you continue to hold up society as being more important than individuals
Again, you are raging pointlessly. I have never said that society is more important than the individuals it is composed of. Society does not exist without individual members. I merely point out that at some point, there has to be a consensus and that consensus is espoused by an authority that represents 'society' rather than individual members.


This is a discussion board that claims as its motto; "deny ignorance". I have all ready shown where your "broad strokes" regarding law have most certainly obfuscated the reality of law. If you want to remain ignorant this is your choice, after all, in spite of its motto, this is just a discussion board.
'Deny Ignorance' is a collective ideal since it takes co-operation to achieve it. Clearly, as an individual you are free to ignore that motto as an example of your individual right. I have accepted the law for the reality that it presents, I recognise the status quo. If you wish to believe that laws are a manifestation of an ethereal karmic movement then go for it. You have that right.


I have done more than indicate, I have flat out stated, and supported my statements with actual laws, that the rights of the individual are what matters
Even when they may contrast with the rights of other individuals? That is where society comes in to represent the greater good. In terms of 'rights of the state', how about the right to maintain secret that information which may be deemed as harmful to society should an enemy become aware of that information? That would have been quite useful when the Inspector of Public Works in Jericho let slip that the foundations of the city wall were in complete disrepair and needed urgent attention... Yes, that was flippant.


RE: Murder, Rape, Theft: Where you would insist that society is what deems normalization, when it tickles your fancy, you will insist that what I see as self evident is really just what "society" has taught me
Killing somebody is not illegal per se, however, we have defined a clear context that indicates when killing is 'unlawful' and it is accorded the label of 'Murder'. We may then consider an individual's guilt based on this definition. The acts themselves are not intrinsically 'wrong', only when considered in the context of society, ergo, society 'normalises' what is acceptable and what is not. Again, just because an individual feels that they have an 'inalienable right' to do something, it doesn't make it so. Society defines what is permissible or prohibited.


Prove it.
You really want me to prove that there are people who kill others without thinking that it is wrong? Really? I mean, really? Such offenders may fear getting caught and recognise that they are unlawful, but that does not mean that they see their actions as 'wrong'. Do you think that every soldier who has killed a person in battle think that they were doing 'wrong'? I think that you'd be surprised at the number of soldiers who have no problem with killing the 'enemy'. Remorse is conditioned by society, not by the act itself. That conditioning manifests differently when contained within society but the actual act is no different.


we need laws to clarify that these things are behaviourally unacceptable: This is just more nonsensical rhetoric that has no meaning, as no amount of legislation will prevent a sociopath from committing a crime
Correct, but the laws/legislation are in place so that the defendant can be tried based on the definition of a 'crime'.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by SugarCube]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
The reason Socialism fails is because it incorporates money and the idea that "everything is everyone's" which is simply not feasible. What you need is a moneyless society, economics work as follows. People can consume as much as is produced. As long as one works and produces one can consume. So in effect, everything is "free", depending on production power of the industrial complex. To eliminate a consolidation of power, such a system would work primarily via the element of bureaucracy, there would be no leadership apart from a pre programmed computer whose code cannot change, nor can the constitution be amended. There would be no federal nor state/territorial government, all would be in self sufficient city states. As all can imagine, factories would be brought back. To power this great undertaking, Tesla technology can be unleashed on the world, and the limitless energy to power machines that produce for us with it. All in all, due to strongly developed automation, robotics and AI, we can, in the end, not be required to work and merely rely on technology to keep our system going. Imagine the time we could all save and spend on developing ourselves when work would become obsolete, where everyone has a personal robot to cook and clean and to take out the garbage. Such a system is possible, but due to the fact that no one leads and no one is in power (hence making the rich and powerful obsolete) it becomes an obvious enemy of the current system. Those in power do not want to lose power. The system works very much like our own in fact, individuals could strive still to create, an individual needs stimulus to succeed, without a goal, a man is nothing.
My point is, we need to eliminate money and give man back his time to reflect on life and change his own life for the better, where in everyone becomes a creator, what we have now are nations filled with parasites.
Capitalists are hard working parasites (they worked to get where they are)
Socialists are lazy parasites (want everything handed down to them)
I suggest something else, where a man has the tools necessary to succeed, but only if he wishes to succeed, one cannot be part of society if one does not work. In a sense, we become parasites on machines, it is a bit more humane that being a parasite on another human being is it not?
For we are all lazy parasites, it is our nature.

This is the part where everyone ignores my post, and go.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Radekus]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Radekus
 


I don't see why you would be ignored Radekus, I think that you raise some very good points. I would say that it is difficult to promote a 'moneyless' society since whatever replaces it effectively becomes 'money' in that it is necessary to support a system where traded services and goods can be converted to 'currency' and back again. However, I think I understand where you're coming from - in that the intrinsic quality of that currency is such that it precludes or constrains the desire to simply accumulate it.

How can that be achieved? Good question! Consider that even the most advanced on-line video games, even those that regard themselves as ground-breaking in terms of their revised definition of 'virtual' society, even they have a form of 'credit' system. Money itself is not the issue but as the old adage goes, "the love of money is the root of all evil..." I see where you're coming from though and I agree, a revision of the monetary system is required.

There are problems with the concept of 'self sufficient city states' but again, you raise an interesting point. I have studied this particular aspect quite a bit and can see the real benefits of 'returning' to discrete 'more' self-sufficient society 'cabals', much like the feudal landscape we would have seen in Europe during the medieval period. Of course, the authority lineage would need to change but the concept is still there. That is to say, instead of creating homogeneous societies where graduated levels of community have been washed away, we actually revert to these clearer boundaries of community and society.

As you indicate, technology has a much greater role to play in our lives, notwithstanding a return of some of the infrastructure concepts of the early 30's up to, say, the 50's. As an example, providing transport infrastructures that remove the necessity and reliance on individual vehicles. There are examples of where this is very success in cities in Europe but it has not been progressed to the 'next level'.

We also have to start looking at money as a 'verb' rather than a noun. Money is of no use except in exchange, especially since it is practically synonymous with a fiduciary system and is not backed by anything other than future taxation revenue. That is another point, by removing taxation as the driving force for monetary value, it is possible that the driving force actually becomes 'real' wealth creation.

Taxation revenues are largely 'spent' by the public sector. This almost certainly needs to be turned around. However, I would say (contrary to some misunderstandings of my opinions) that it is still possible to be part of society regardless of whether one works. The real balance has to be between what one takes out with what one puts in.

I really think that a modernised feudal system could work to the benefit of society both at the micro and macro level but it would require a shift in the way that we view our nations.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The history of money and trade in 10 minutes.

By Walter Block


Understanding how money came into existence is critical to understanding what role it should play in our society today and how that money should be controlled.

Un-alienable rights are rights the government can not place a lien against because they are accorded to you by the very nature of your existence.

Thus, government can not grant rights, it can only take them away.

The example was mentioned about a persons right to liberty entailing the right to fight back against any incarceration no matter what crime has been committed. - We can clarify this by stating if a person violates the inalienable rights of another, he is giving up his own claim to such rights.

For example, if I violate someone else's right to liberty by kidnapping them, I have forfeited up my own right to liberty in the process.

If I have damaged someone else's property by my actions, I have forfeited my own property in the process because I should be made to pay back the damages I have inflicted on another.

From the basic rights of property and liberty, we can define a very limited set of laws to govern a peaceful society that respects our inalienable rights.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The example was mentioned about a persons right to liberty entailing the right to fight back against any incarceration no matter what crime has been committed. - We can clarify this by stating if a person violates the inalienable rights of another, he is giving up his own claim to such rights.

For example, if I violate someone else's right to liberty by kidnapping them, I have forfeited up my own right to liberty in the process.

If I have damaged someone else's property by my actions, I have forfeited my own property in the process because I should be made to pay back the damages I have inflicted on another.

From the basic rights of property and liberty, we can define a very limited set of laws to govern a peaceful society that respects our inalienable rights.

I have highlighted a couple of significant statements here. The first involves the statement of a 'right'. Ultimately, there has to be a consensus and this has to be clearly defined as an objective point of reference.

Using that example of the idealised right to liberty, with that established, when the kidnapper is captured and incarcerated he complains that his right of liberty has been compromised. He has a point, so we need to qualify the original idealistic vision and clearly indicate that a person may forfeit their established right to liberty if they kidnap somebody (or commit a different kind of crime). We then have a much clearer point of reference to indicate when liberty may be forfeited and maybe a list of activities that would attract that kind of retribution from society (i.e. crimes).

The point is, this requires clear definition and it has to be maintained by a body that represents society embodied within the 'state' or we just end up with vigilantes, however, that body simply acts as a custodian of the rules as defined by the consensus of society - so that they cannot be amended without due process.

It has to be clearly defined or we have no recourse for defence or accusation, we have no standard against which to measure our actions. We have taken those conceptual 'inalienable rights', agreed by a consensus of society (one hopes) and define them accordingly so that they represent an objective reference point that may be used in arbitration ideally, without any subjective interpretation.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


I "googled" socialism once and read the descriptions.

The one I remember the most is the the one that said the only way socialism could work is if all the people were of the same race and had the same beliefs and culture.

We all know that will never happen.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oneolddude
The one I remember the most is the the one that said the only way socialism could work is if all the people were of the same race and had the same beliefs and culture.


It is bizarre of the site that you looked up to cite 'race' as a reason for a failure in socialism, although granted, 'belief' systems and 'culture' have a major impact since they can distort the ability to create a consensus that acts as the voice of that society.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 


Jefferson has given us the purest definition of rights and the foundation of law.

etext.virginia.edu...

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.


For an expounded definition of rights, Dr. Tom Woods provides us with one of the best lectures on natural rights I've ever heard:

fascistsoup.com...

I'd post the video, but its a playlist.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join