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.
Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by gentledissident
lol....I'd go to the foreclosure auctions, buy the foreclosed homes, contact the original owners that lost them and sell the back to them for $200 a month for two years!! use the loss as a writeoff on my taxes if it was possible.
Originally posted by nightbringrAnd.............which society do you propose we emulate that is free of corruption, greed and the desire for advancement?
My motivation is always oriented to "what i want to do". And no, i never once suggested "everyone" wants to be lazy. And no, not everyone should be able to work ANY job they want. Someone with less than average intelligence should NOT be a brain surgeon. They must be able to pass a very hard course. The requirements on such things weeds out the chaff and those incapable. We are not all created equal.
And a doctor is an enjoyable job? You have got to be kidding me! They make incredible money for very good reasons. They must pass many years of schooling and have to put their hands places most people wouldnt touch. Your a bit out of touch with reality i think.
And some people are motivated to do what they want. And that is to sit on their asses collecting welfare, drinking or doing criminal activities.
Originally posted by nightbringr
Originally posted by apushforenlightment
Are not capitalism a competition?
Of course not. Who are you competing against? Your neighbour? Do you feel a need to have a better SUV then them? If so, you need to look in the mirror to find the problem, not at capitalism. Just because the TV tells you you have to have a BMW doesnt mean you have to listen to it. Be an individual who thinks for himself.
Originally posted by apushforenlightment
Do not competition have winners?
Again, YOU view life as a contest. Mirror.
Originally posted by apushforenlightment
Do not the winners of capitalism get more money?
Not always. For me, hard work made me more money and a better life. I didnt start with much.
Originally posted by apushforenlightment
Do not the people who have money have an easier time to get more money?
Originally posted by apushforenlightment
If this is not a pyramid scheme then I do not know what a pyramid scheme is.
Originally posted by apushforenlightment
The only way you can be free in a capitalism and have a choice to participate or not is if you are self sufficent and own yourself the land you need to be self sufficent and there is not tax at all. Because the tax is a parasite on the individual that is parasited on by the capitalists that are winning the game.
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
Private property is not just "owning something," it is the concept in which possessions under your purview are inalienable and eternally exploitable. The natives from days of past have not used the money in which capitalism uses it, they used it as things that were evenly distributed and could be exchanged for whatever they needed. When new things were introduced to tribes, they could not simply distribute everything they owned evenly, what if person X didn't need object Y, and Person Z needed it more? The currency could be used for a person's needs. HOWEVER, it was not attained by merits or by achievements, it was just like the old system of even distribution, but with the ability to "purchase" different objects for a need basis. It was still "socialist"
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
Originally posted by nightbringrAnd.............which society do you propose we emulate that is free of corruption, greed and the desire for advancement?
Who is trying to limit advancement, here, exactly? If you mean to say that the selfishness of today can be linked to disposable income, than that is indeed capitalism's fault. If you mean to say that electronics are part of the problem, then that could be the media's fault. I don't know where this is leading, though
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
My motivation is always oriented to "what i want to do". And no, i never once suggested "everyone" wants to be lazy. And no, not everyone should be able to work ANY job they want. Someone with less than average intelligence should NOT be a brain surgeon. They must be able to pass a very hard course. The requirements on such things weeds out the chaff and those incapable. We are not all created equal.
No one said that society would just hand out occupations, of course they would have to qualify before getting a job
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
And a doctor is an enjoyable job? You have got to be kidding me! They make incredible money for very good reasons. They must pass many years of schooling and have to put their hands places most people wouldnt touch. Your a bit out of touch with reality i think.
You're right, NO ONE wants to be a doctor, NO ONE wants to help cure peoples ails, NO ONE wants delve into the ever expanding field of medicine, NO ONE wants to find new cures to the emerging diseases of the world, NO ONE wants to enjoy the great amount of social respect and responsibility that comes with being a doctor. These are things that alot of people would want to do and experience, but cannot because they have to suffer being born into poor economic conditions. Why do you think that workplaces and emerging fields try and recruit people based on that they're going to DO rather than what they are going to get paid? It's because the actual interest in the field plays a big role in what people want to do
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
And some people are motivated to do what they want. And that is to sit on their asses collecting welfare, drinking or doing criminal activities.
"Hey little Billy, what do you want to do when you grow up?" "I want to be a welfare collector who purposefully limits the scope of his personal enjoyment!" No one says that, by the way
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
wow, you sir LOVE to twist the truth and history to fit your needs... Ancient tribes were not socialist... They didn't have a government that decided what people need, and what they don't need... That is socialism...
In socialism the means ofproduction is owned and controlled by the STATE/government... Appart from that ALL private property is banned in socialism since private property is a right in CAPITALISM, and socialists HATE CAPITALISM...
Ancient people did not just "get exactly the basic needs and stopped at the bare minimum"... They worked to make their lives better, to thrive... That means MORE than just the bare minimum which socialism is known for...
in socialism you need the consent of the government for you to sell or buy things, and how many you can buy... This is not what happened with ancient tribes, so you are completely wrong...
Originally posted by nightbringr
Selfishness is universal and eternal. Long before capitalism we had feudalism. Were the kings and queens not selfish and covet what other kings and queens had? Did the serf not aspire to become a knight? The knight not aspire to become a lord? The lords kings? Capitalism does not create jealously, greed or selfishness, those are human traits. Its an important part of our makeup and the drive to survive and succeed. If people were complacient, we would never have become the dominant species on our planet and would have died as a species many millenia ago.
And how is this different from now?
No idea what your getting at here. Some want to be doctors, some dont. Your original point was that it was a fun job. While that may be true from some, it certainly is not for all.
What is it you propose? Free schooling for all, even at university level? Wow i see a whole lot of Van Wilders milking that for years, never intending to do more in the end than being a construction worker. But the 10 years spent in university on public funding and tax money is gonna be great! Yeah!
Maybe not in your country. Im sure each and every person there contributes, never misses a day of work because they love it so much and all people donate their personal time and excess money to help the advancement of society. Yeah, that sounds like a great world, but its not true or realistic, is it? I suppose your country has no criminals who live off the avails of others? No biker gangs, no street gangs, no drug dealers, pimps, nothing. Nope! Everyone works and pays their taxes! Doubtful.
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
Originally posted by nightbringr
Selfishness is universal and eternal. Long before capitalism we had feudalism. Were the kings and queens not selfish and covet what other kings and queens had? Did the serf not aspire to become a knight? The knight not aspire to become a lord? The lords kings? Capitalism does not create jealously, greed or selfishness, those are human traits. Its an important part of our makeup and the drive to survive and succeed. If people were complacient, we would never have become the dominant species on our planet and would have died as a species many millenia ago.
The tales of aspiration you claim existed are either myths forged during the renaissance to exaggerate the feudal times or came during the late feudal times where market expansion and countless crusades threw feudalism into question. There was no true aspiration at the time because it was a caste system, everyone knew it was impossible to escape your class whether you wanted to or not
And how is this different from now?
No idea what your getting at here. Some want to be doctors, some dont. Your original point was that it was a fun job. While that may be true from some, it certainly is not for all.
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
What is it you propose? Free schooling for all, even at university level? Wow i see a whole lot of Van Wilders milking that for years, never intending to do more in the end than being a construction worker. But the 10 years spent in university on public funding and tax money is gonna be great! Yeah!
But, again, why would people do this? Go through schooling in a career they want and then not do anything with it? You can't just point out a ridiculous hypothetical situation that no one would ever engage in and then use it as a point for your argument. "Hey guys, someone could insert their genitalia into a blender, therefore we should not create blenders"
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
Maybe not in your country. Im sure each and every person there contributes, never misses a day of work because they love it so much and all people donate their personal time and excess money to help the advancement of society. Yeah, that sounds like a great world, but its not true or realistic, is it? I suppose your country has no criminals who live off the avails of others? No biker gangs, no street gangs, no drug dealers, pimps, nothing. Nope! Everyone works and pays their taxes! Doubtful.
Thanks for pointing out the countless flaws of capitalism. Just because the socio economic situation is poopy does not mean it has to be
Originally posted by Mr Headshot
reply to post by apushforenlightment
Nope, that's fascism. You people really don't get this.
Originally posted by nightbringr
There was no aspiration before capitalism...................?
Considering ending this debate now. Thought i had an intelligent debate going but your telling me people had no ambition before money existed? Wow. Just...........wow. You do realize coin existed then, dont you? And merchants?
Again, im not sure what dream world you live in, i want in. It must be truely utopia. You dont think there are people who milk the system to have a great time in university partying and picking up university girls simpy because they can? I think i understand why you argue the way you do now. You are simply incredible naive with an incredible idealistic view of the world. I wish i could see things as you do. But alas, i am aware the world is quite messed up and not quite so perfect.
I agree. I wish it wasnt so poopy either. But it is.
My two solutions to clean up capitalism:
1. End corporate political donations. No donations, no favoritism
2. End corporate lobby groups and interests
Originally posted by dawnstar
but, one could devise a socialist society where anyone could have anything, as long as the resources were available and the members of the society was willing to do their part to keep things running.
...
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
Uh, just because they lack an official governing body does not mean it does not share characteristics common with socialism. The collective ownership concept is still there, the "common good" concept is still there, the conservation of material is still there
The common good or common weal is a term that can refer to several different concepts. In the popular meaning, the common good describes a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. This is also how the common good is broadly defined in philosophy, ethics, and political science.
However there is no strict definition of the common good for each situation. The good that is common between person A and person B may not be the same as between person A and person C. Thus the common good can often change, although there are some things — such as the basic requirements for staying alive: food, water, and shelter — that are always good for all people.
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
Thanks for giving us the 1920's definition that was made to make it sound all evil and scary. You're a champ. In socialism, the means of production are owned both by the workers of the workplaces and by the public at large....
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
No one said anything about bare minimum, however, given the projected rise in human population (upload.wikimedia.org...), it would eventually HAVE to come to that, whether you like it or not. The wasteful nature of capitalism will only further speed this up
Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
This too is not true. Possessions in socialism are still owned by the public, and are not considered private property to avoid the possibility of exploiting land, workers, and production. However, that does not mean that the objects that are given to people to suit their needs or wants cannot be used by themselves, their rights of its use are simply limited to avoid exploitation. Also, why would you need to sell things anyways when you would be provided for from the get go?
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Again, you are so wrong it is not even funny... Native Americans did have a sort of government, the council of elders, which decided/decide whether the tribe should move, etc, but it couldn't decide what to do with the private property of individuals...
Collective ownership didn't//doesn't exist among most native American tribes... What a warrior found was his, and not for everyone else... What a warrior won in battle was his...Warriors had private property which included horses...
Common good to an extent exists even in Capitalism... hence a free market/capitalism where people would trade things, including skills for the common good of the individuals involved...
Common good is not a feature only of socialism...
The definition of socialism HAS ALWAYS BEEN the means of production owned and controlled by the state... To this day that is it's real definition, but COMMUNISTS like yourself are trying to blur the difference between socialism and communism to implement COMMUNISM faster...
In socialism/communism it is believed that people only need the bare minimum... Hence why in all socialist/communist dictatorships the state dictates how much, and what you can buy and for how much you can buy it... From China, Cuba, the U.S.S.R., North Korea, Vietnam, to every other socialist/communist dictatorship the state dictates/dictated what foods and how much people should buy and for how much...
You just spouted the same lies that every socialist/communist dictator has made to lure people into believing COMMUNISM is great...
You sir have no idea what COMMUNISM, or even SOCIALISM are about...