Let me ask you a couple questions...

[Hurlshort]

And then there are my students, who are from China and Korea and see first hand the differences between the two types of government.

 

Wait, what?

 

I'm not quite sure how I can say that any differently. I have a lot of students from China. They go back over the summers and other breaks.

[Oblarg]

LoF, I love your "get paid proportionally to your contribution to society" rhetoric, but there's a rather large problem with it.

 

How do you quantify "contribution to society?"

[I want teh kotor 3]

Alright LoF, I'm bored and trying to take my mind off of Mass Effect, so, against my better judgment, here I go:

 

In your warped view of reality, the government should have the ability to extend a firm "**** you" to the rich... The problem is, however, that the rich are rich for a reason: they have the capital that enables the economy to run successfully. When you remove this capital, you severely hamper possible economic progress. Capital distributed among many people can't be as efficient as capital clustered among the few, because not everyone has the same goal.

 

You also labor under the delusion that redistributing wealth can be achieved without force. This is just plain damn wrong. The rich have a desire to stay that way, and really cannot be convinced not to do so without a gun to their heads. And why should they? Its their money. Some way or another, they gained it; this fact can't be made to "go away" because it doesn't mesh with your collectivist view. By your own logic, namely that property rights don't exist, the rich have done nothing wrong. What you claim they have taken from the poor doesn't actually belong to the poor, so they shouldn't complain.

 

You say that economic planning works. It doesn't. The USSR's industrialization was only possible because of an anti-American surge of testosterone, coupled with the thinly veiled threat of death if production did not meet someone's approval. But the USSR's is the only example of successful, centralized industrial planning. Look at Mao's Great Leap Forward; it failed harder than the Iraq War. No appreciable industrialization was created; a crap-ton of corpses, however, were.

 

/rant

I'm done.

[Pope]

Equality of opportunity is one of those things that look very nice and shiny on paper, but impossible to implement in the reality we live in. Everyone has different talents, some folks more than the next. Sports are a very good example of this. In practice, equality of opportunity would imply that people in the lucky sperm club would need to be handicapped in some form, just to give less fortunate people the same chances at success. Not only is that impossible, it's also completely retarded.

[213374U]

You say that economic planning works. It doesn't. The USSR's industrialization was only possible because of an anti-American surge of testosterone, coupled with the thinly veiled threat of death if production did not meet someone's approval. But the USSR's is the only example of successful, centralized industrial planning.

So it doesn't work, but then you provide an example that shows that it does in fact work?

 

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

It's a shame that Cold War era propaganda still has such a grasp of the collective mind that it prevents folks from examining facts with an impartial mentality. And when faced with evidence that contradicts one's preconceptions, it's cognitive dissonance time! "Anti-American surge of testosterone", lol.

 

The thing is, Russia went from an eminently agrarian economy at the end of WWI to possessing an industrial base that rivalled or in some cases outstripped that of the world's major powers by the 1940's. Thanks to, or despite central planning, depends on who you ask. But the fact remains that Soviet industrialization policies achieved their intended goals, and this wasn't an accident.

[lord of flies]

LoF, I love your "get paid proportionally to your contribution to society" rhetoric, but there's a rather large problem with it.

 

How do you quantify "contribution to society?"

Depends on the job. For coal mining, it's how much coal you mine.

In your warped view of reality, the government should have the ability to extend a firm "**** you" to the rich... The problem is, however, that the rich are rich for a reason: they have the capital that enables the economy to run successfully. When you remove this capital, you severely hamper possible economic progress. Capital distributed among many people can't be as efficient as capital clustered among the few, because not everyone has the same goal.

 

You also labor under the delusion that redistributing wealth can be achieved without force. This is just plain damn wrong. The rich have a desire to stay that way, and really cannot be convinced not to do so without a gun to their heads. And why should they? Its their money. Some way or another, they gained it; this fact can't be made to "go away" because it doesn't mesh with your collectivist view. By your own logic, namely that property rights don't exist, the rich have done nothing wrong. What you claim they have taken from the poor doesn't actually belong to the poor, so they shouldn't complain.

Much of what you say is true. However, a significant portion of capital should be invested in the democratically elected government, just as it is now (though probably a larger portion). Kaboom. Argument destroyed.

You say that economic planning works. It doesn't. The USSR's industrialization was only possible because of an anti-American surge of testosterone, coupled with the thinly veiled threat of death if production did not meet someone's approval. But the USSR's is the only example of successful, centralized industrial planning. Look at Mao's Great Leap Forward; it failed harder than the Iraq War. No appreciable industrialization was created; a crap-ton of corpses, however, were.

Mao's Great Leap Forward was a single incident. China's economy nearly doubled from $614.00 per capita in 1950 to $1,186.00 per capita in 1973. Ooga booga.

 

The USSR was not some 1984 Big Brother state where everyone was constantly caught in mind-numbing terror, after Khruschev's Secret Speech (and before the Great Purge), the Gulag system was hardly some insane massacre machine that put the fear of death into everyone.

 

Cuba maintains a functional command economy (NK doesn't, but that's because of military stuff). Etc.

Equality of opportunity is one of those things that look very nice and shiny on paper, but impossible to implement in the reality we live in. Everyone has different talents, some folks more than the next. Sports are a very good example of this. In practice, equality of opportunity would imply that people in the lucky sperm club would need to be handicapped in some form, just to give less fortunate people the same chances at success. Not only is that impossible, it's also completely retarded.

No, that's "equality of outcome." Equality of opportunity means that everyone has the same chance to succeed, and will succeed or fail based upon their own merits.

[Tigranes]

By your own logic, namely that property rights don't exist, the rich have done nothing wrong. What you claim they have taken from the poor doesn't actually belong to the poor, so they shouldn't complain.

 

Is it just me, or does that make zero sense?

 

Depends on the job. For coal mining, it's how much coal you mine.

 

So if a communist government decides the distribution of wealth based on contribution to society, how do you decide how much $ you get paid for mining, uh, a ton of coal? How does it compare to the $ you get paid for... fishing a ton of fish? Does it depend on how important coal is to society relative to fish, i.e. the demand of coal in society as opposed to the demand of fish? In which case, isn't that basic capitalist market forces? Or do you pay the miner and fisher the same? In that case, how do you control production rates - i.e. what if everyone decides they'd rather fish than mine coal, and you end up with way too much fish? Do you start paying them less because their contribution to society has proportionally decreased? Again, isn't that basic capitalist market forces? Or do you (forcibly) reduce the number of fishermen and redirect the labour to coal - in which case, we've lost freedom to choose our jobs and have made our theoretical communist govt require even more military force?

[Killian Kalthorne]

I take a look at each of the communistic countries in the world such as North Korea and China. Take a good hard look at the freedoms they have, how the government handles opposition and free speech, and how these governments treat their respective minorities and I just have to say that I am so glad I live in the United States. Its not perfect, but it is hell of a lot better than China and NK.

[Oblarg]

LoF, I love your "get paid proportionally to your contribution to society" rhetoric, but there's a rather large problem with it.

 

How do you quantify "contribution to society?"

Depends on the job. For coal mining, it's how much coal you mine.

 

And how do you judge the value of four tons of coal mined versus three people cured of cancer or fifty cars made?

[Killian Kalthorne]

And how do you judge the value of four tons of coal mined versus three people cured of cancer or fifty cars made?

 

You can't.

[lord of flies]

And how do you judge the value of four tons of coal mined versus three people cured of cancer or fifty cars made?

A mix of Gosplan and market forces.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Market forces? Market forces is capitalistic and capitalism is bad. BAD BAD BAD! At least according to you. There is no market forces in communism. It is whatever the communistic government dictates.

[Pope]

Equality of opportunity is one of those things that look very nice and shiny on paper, but impossible to implement in the reality we live in. Everyone has different talents, some folks more than the next. Sports are a very good example of this. In practice, equality of opportunity would imply that people in the lucky sperm club would need to be handicapped in some form, just to give less fortunate people the same chances at success. Not only is that impossible, it's also completely retarded.

No, that's "equality of outcome." Equality of opportunity means that everyone has the same chance to succeed, and will succeed or fail based upon their own merits.

Again, nice in theory. Are you really saying individual merit can be the one and only determining factor for success? That it can possibly overcome the enormous luck factor (on both a social and genetic level)?

 

Besides, what is success? You use the term as if there's an absolute meaning to it. Say I'm born a cripple and I've developed the crazy wish to succeed in the Olympics (not the Specials!). If that is my view on success, who are you to tell me what success really is? But whichever way you interpret it, isn't success also an outcome? Thereby making equality of opportunity and equality of outcome pretty much the same thing.

 

And what about merit? Wouldn't you agree that merit is intrinsically related with social and genetic advantages, whether you like it or not? Someone born into a caring family would be raised with an entirely different set of values than someone with abusive parents. The first one might, as a result, consider altruism a merit, whilst the latter one might find that he must constantly live up to his parents' expectations. Can you blame either of them? Neither of them ever decided to grow up into their specific families? So is it a merit of the first one that his values better suit our current social norm? Is a man born with an athletic body more deserving of a golden medal than a cripple?

Edited January 26, 2010 by Pope

[Oblarg]

And how do you judge the value of four tons of coal mined versus three people cured of cancer or fifty cars made?

A mix of Gosplan and market forces.

 

You're attempting to trivialize something that isn't trivial. There is no simple and effective way of determining the relative value of completely different types of work.

[lord of flies]

Market forces? Market forces is capitalistic and capitalism is bad. BAD BAD BAD! At least according to you. There is no market forces in communism. It is whatever the communistic government dictates.

In the early Soviet Union, although they did not rely on the gold standard, the value of the ruble was ensured by their large gold supplies. When its value began to drop, they started selling lots of gold, and when it began to rise, they started buying it. Socialist societies control and manipulate market forces, unlike capitalist societies which are controlled by them.

Is a man born with an athletic body more deserving of a golden medal than a cripple?

If that golden medal is for athletic ability, then yeah. I don't see why you're going into crazy mode about this, it's pretty rudimentary.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Market forces should be in control of the individual companies and corporations, not by the government. The government should have nothing to do with the market. A company or corporation should live or die on its own merits, not by government control or backing. Capitalism is the cornerstone of freedom. Freedom to rise, freedom to fall, based on the merits of the individual as it should be.

[Pope]

If that golden medal is for athletic ability, then yeah. I don't see why you're going into crazy mode about this, it's pretty rudimentary.

I'm not going into crazy mode just genuinely curious about how you think things like merit, success, and equality of opportunity fit together.

 

Besides, it might not be so rudimentary as you claim. Sure, athletes work hard in honing their skills, but there's no denying that most top athletes were simply born with a natural affinity for sports. They might have longer legs for example. I'd hardly call that a personal merit.

 

To me it seems that the only real way of assuring everyone of completely equal opportunities would be to give them all equal starting positions. Now on a social level this might be possible in theory (although in practice it is an entirely different matter), by giving everyone the exact same education and material advantages (if any). However, on a genetic level things tend to get a bit more complicated. An intelligent person obviously has an advantage over less intelligent people in achieving success. In order to create equal opportunities, one would either need to hold back the intelligent, or give the stupid extra attention and chances to fully develop themselves. The first option seems unfair, whilst the second (if even possible) would require much effort, eventually leading us to question whether it's even worth it. Then again, with advances in biotechnology going the way they are, engineering people will actually be possible in the not so distant future, but is this something you would support? Or would you oppose genetically improving people, because this might result in others having less chance at success?

 

In essence, what I'm trying to say is that although I like the idea of equality of opportunity, I feel it is much more an ideal than something that can ever be fully achieved, at least not without enormous consequences, which I do not believe mankind to be ready for. Therefore I do not believe in equality of opportunity, to answer your first question in this topic.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Pope

[213374U]

Socialist societies control and manipulate market forces, unlike capitalist societies which are controlled by them.

This is a recipe for disaster, unless you are talking about "world socialism" or some other fantastic scenario. It's also a straw man in the sense that non-socialist regimes aren't slaves to market forces as you seem to be implying. Case in point, the US manipulated the markets effectively enough to bring about the collapse of the Soviet economy. Didn't we go over this already?

 

[Walsingham]

The hub of your insane delusion is revealed to be that you believe that centrally planned economies worked in China and Russia. You can huff all you like but looking around the forum no one is buying your fantasy except you.

 

Even accepting growth occurred, you are also saying that the deaths of tens of millions in famine and persecution are acceptable prices for that growth. Rather than other countries which grew enormously over the same period like West Germany or Japan.

[lord of flies]

The hub of your insane delusion is revealed to be that you believe that centrally planned economies worked in China and Russia. You can huff all you like but looking around the forum no one is buying your fantasy except you.

My "fantasy"? Take a look through Farm to Factory, it's a pretty damn good analysis of Soviet industrialization and its key factors.

Even accepting growth occurred, you are also saying that the deaths of tens of millions in famine and persecution are acceptable prices for that growth. Rather than other countries which grew enormously over the same period like West Germany or Japan.

I'll remind you that Japan was capable of competing with Britain in textile production when its economy was tied with Russia's in terms of GDP per capita (1910s-ish). Different country, different economics. As for West Germany, it's hardly a surprise that Germany has a large economy, it has had a large economy forever.

Besides, it might not be so rudimentary as you claim. Sure, athletes work hard in honing their skills, but there's no denying that most top athletes were simply born with a natural affinity for sports. They might have longer legs for example. I'd hardly call that a personal merit.

I disagree, that's absolutely merit.

[Pope]

Besides, it might not be so rudimentary as you claim. Sure, athletes work hard in honing their skills, but there's no denying that most top athletes were simply born with a natural affinity for sports. They might have longer legs for example. I'd hardly call that a personal merit.

I disagree, that's absolutely merit.

Well I consider that luck, and completely separate from personal merit. I do, however, believe that everyone who is lucky should be able to gain from such luck. And that is not equality of opportunity, since lucky people undeniably get more chances at success.

[lord of flies]

Well I consider that luck, and completely separate from personal merit. I do, however, believe that everyone who is lucky should be able to gain from such luck. And that is not equality of opportunity, since lucky people undeniably get more chances at success.

Lucky people... get better chances at success? No... no... no!!!

 

By definition, lucky people have better chances, since the only thing that differs between a lucky person and an unlucky one is their luck, which is completely chance based.

 

This is ridiculous. You think "equality of opportunity" means, what, no chance based aspect? The universe is causal. All our qualities, positive or negative, are eventually the consequence of things which are not of our own making. This is just a ridiculous definitions game.

[Pope]

You think "equality of opportunity" means, what, no chance based aspect?

Yes, that is exactly what it should mean. Isn't cancelling out the luck factor one of the main aspirations of your beloved socialism? As in eliminating social classes and granting equal starting positions? But because, like you said,

 

The universe is causal...

...it is impossible to accomplish.

 

But anyway, I see that you're pretty much convinced that I'm an idiot, so I probably shouldn't bother arguing.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Pope