Removal of all Socialism in the US!

[Orogun01]

Nevermind everyone. It is not a trap, just a question to establish where everyone was coming from, where their values were. Forget it. Like I said having that kind of discussion here is a waste of everyones time and will just devolve into a flame out sooner than later.

Let the Flame Wars begin!!!

[Killian Kalthorne]

Sounds like Sand in his medicinal bucket.

 

I'm not sure which to choose. Neither sounds like it would suit me. On the one hand I rely on others a lot to fulfil key requirements like giving me medicines for all my failing body parts, and in turn work quite hard to help others. On the other hand I hate taking orders from anyone I don't both know and respect. On the other hand I ...

 

Look do I have to really choose between anarchy and maternal despotism?

 

Severe lack of sleep can do strange things to one's psyche.

[Arkan]

Wouldn't complete lack of socalism be like Rapture from Bioshock? Every man for himself?

[Gorth]

Anarchy or socialism?

 

Man, you don't ask easy questions GD. Need to think more about that one. Might return later after thinking about it (if the thread is still alive)

[213374U]

I'll take a bullet to the head, thank you. Which is what I'd probably get in either scenario, anyway...

[Humodour]

Anarchy or socialism?

 

Man, you don't ask easy questions GD. Need to think more about that one. Might return later after thinking about it (if the thread is still alive)

 

Socialism in a heartbeat. Assuming it is democratic socialism. Otherwise anarchy, since it'd be easier to eventually form a government from an anarchy then it would be to regain democracy in a totalitarian state.

[Asol]

Anarchy is just people being responsible for themselves, and maybe dealing with their fear of god for each other.

 

Also the maximum freedom option means not empowering corporations around the clock who then naturally own the polititians you cheer or fingerwag. Which entails probably more work on more fronts than the average human housecat has become accustomed. Everyone is a rugged individualist before and after they borrow their way through college to get that job at XCORP or before they crash that motorcycle and need a squillion unforseen medical attention etc...

 

You are not 'free' with an institution meeting your needs, you just have an acceptable facimile relative to how extensively your needs are being met. The spectrum is maximum or minimum self responsibility.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Socialism in a heartbeat. Assuming it is democratic socialism.

 

This.

[Oblarg]

Which is more desireable to you guys, a society where citizens are afforded the maximum amout of freedom or the maximum amount of care if the two are mutually exclusive? I know in the real world it is much more complex than that but for discussions sake least accept the premise.

 

Which do you prefer?

 

So either we can have an anarchy in which everyone is completely "free" but lacks any social infrastructure to increase quality of life, or the strongest possible social infrastructure at the cost of "freedom?"

 

Well, other than the fact that you haven't defined "freedom," this is a completely obvious choice. Society exists for a reason, bud - populations with social standards and governments are more stable than those without them.

[Killian Kalthorne]

In this dying world there is a shadow of a smile

I dare not see but it is always there in my mind.

I walk against the wind trying to understand, to find

what is within the wastes that has spread for miles.

 

A cry for help, a cry for freedom, cry for something

that is unfathomable clouds my irrational thought.

Some say it is madness, some say it cannot be brought

by mortal hands, however it keeps me laughing.

 

Crowds, always pushing and pulling without an end

enraptured in their own struggles, acting so clueless

to the truth that beckons them, ever so worthless.

By blade or bullet, they come with ideologies to defend...

 

Unable to see one truth, dead is dead and all life leads to it

[Mamoulian War]

Anarchy or socialism?

 

Man, you don't ask easy questions GD. Need to think more about that one. Might return later after thinking about it (if the thread is still alive)

 

Socialism in a heartbeat. Assuming it is democratic socialism. Otherwise anarchy, since it'd be easier to eventually form a government from an anarchy then it would be to regain democracy in a totalitarian state.

 

Human nature says, that if you have everything handed to you on golden plate, you do not need democracy Why would you care about who is ruling over you, if he gives you everything you want and need without asking questions?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Mamoulian War

[Humodour]

Anarchy or socialism?

 

Man, you don't ask easy questions GD. Need to think more about that one. Might return later after thinking about it (if the thread is still alive)

 

Socialism in a heartbeat. Assuming it is democratic socialism. Otherwise anarchy, since it'd be easier to eventually form a government from an anarchy then it would be to regain democracy in a totalitarian state.

 

Human nature says, that if you have everything handed to you on golden plate, you do not need democracy Why would you care about who is ruling over you, if he gives you everything you want and need without asking questions?

 

What if he doesn't give you everything you want and need?

[Walsingham]

Nevermind everyone. It is not a trap, just a question to establish where everyone was coming from, where their values were. Forget it. Like I said having that kind of discussion here is a waste of everyones time and will just devolve into a flame out sooner than later.

 

I didn't think it was a trap. It just sounds like a stakeout question like "would you rather have no legs or fifty legs"

[Killian Kalthorne]

When it comes to legs it would depend if barbecue sauce was involved or not.

[Mamoulian War]

Anarchy or socialism?

 

Man, you don't ask easy questions GD. Need to think more about that one. Might return later after thinking about it (if the thread is still alive)

 

Socialism in a heartbeat. Assuming it is democratic socialism. Otherwise anarchy, since it'd be easier to eventually form a government from an anarchy then it would be to regain democracy in a totalitarian state.

 

Human nature says, that if you have everything handed to you on golden plate, you do not need democracy Why would you care about who is ruling over you, if he gives you everything you want and need without asking questions?

 

What if he doesn't give you everything you want and need?

 

He asked for maximum freedom or maximum care... in hypothetical maximum freedom, you can do anything you wish, without fear of prosecution... in hypothetical maximum care, you get anything you want because the leader cares...

 

but that gives a nice paradox what if you would ask of your leader in maximum care community to grant you maximum freedom?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Mamoulian War

[Walsingham]

One thing I must say which occurred to me a couple of days ago but I forgot about, is that the state vs people thing is a bit outdated. It runs from the era of big political thinkers. But in this dichotomy there is no big business, and I think there should be, to form a triad. This is not to have a go at the thinkers because back in the day there WAS no fething big business; not even real prototypes of big business. I'm no commie, but in the balancing act between personal freedom and government we now have to contend with brutalisation by entities other than government.

 

I think this is important because I would respectfully suggest that GD is an excellent example of how leaving big business out of one's political map leaves you vulnerable to unanticipated misfortunes. It is no more sensible to say that corporations are your slaves because you choose which to patronise than it is to say that politicians are your slaves because they need you to vote for them.

[Guard Dog]

One thing I must say which occurred to me a couple of days ago but I forgot about, is that the state vs people thing is a bit outdated. It runs from the era of big political thinkers. But in this dichotomy there is no big business, and I think there should be, to form a triad. This is not to have a go at the thinkers because back in the day there WAS no fething big business; not even real prototypes of big business. I'm no commie, but in the balancing act between personal freedom and government we now have to contend with brutalisation by entities other than government.

 

I think this is important because I would respectfully suggest that GD is an excellent example of how leaving big business out of one's political map leaves you vulnerable to unanticipated misfortunes. It is no more sensible to say that corporations are your slaves because you choose which to patronise than it is to say that politicians are your slaves because they need you to vote for them.

 

Why does everyone assume I'm talking about anarchy? Why is there an assumption in a society where the govenrment does the minimum there is no law or criminal prosecution? I did not feel the need to qualify that because I thought it went withourt saying there is law enforcement under ANY government. True I'd pefer the limits to be light and restrained, a silken rope rather than iron chains. I guess the heart of the matter is you guys are cynical in the extreme about human behaviour, and think it needs to be controlled even at the expense of your own freedom. It makes no sense to me.

 

Now to address what Wals said. There is the absurd notion on this board that coporations are terrible evil things that want to enslave people and destroy the world. Further, most of you seem to think govenrment is this great altruistic champion of the down trodden and only wants whats best for everyone. That makes no sense to me at all. Microsoft cannot take a thing away from you. They cannot take you money, your home, your freedom or your life. They can only take what you freely give them by buying their products. And if you wish you can not but their products and give them nothing at all. Your government can take everything from you. Your home, your money, your freedom and your very life. In the US you do have due process protections on the last two (if you can afford it) but on the first two, the odds are very much against you.

 

If you don't believe me, just ask the citizens of New London CT, Klamath Falls OR, Rivera Beach FL, Covington TN, (I could go on all day) what the government can take away from you and give you nothing in return. Who should you really be afraid of here?

 

This whole notion of giving governments more and more power over individuals is self destructive to the point of insanity to me. I will NEVER understand it.

[213374U]

Microsoft

While I appreciate your careful choice of an example, you know that's not the best case study to use for or against what people are thinking.

 

I have a friend that works in the pharmaceutical industry, and trust me, the business is full of dishonest practices that do hurt people. Of course that problem is in part caused by lack of effective oversight in public health centers, but still.

 

Corporations don't want to destroy the world, but they do want to make the most money possible -- and they often don't much care what happens to the world in the process.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Corporations are after the same thing everybody else is: money. So why villainize them as opposed to everybody else's?

[Oblarg]

One thing I must say which occurred to me a couple of days ago but I forgot about, is that the state vs people thing is a bit outdated. It runs from the era of big political thinkers. But in this dichotomy there is no big business, and I think there should be, to form a triad. This is not to have a go at the thinkers because back in the day there WAS no fething big business; not even real prototypes of big business. I'm no commie, but in the balancing act between personal freedom and government we now have to contend with brutalisation by entities other than government.

 

I think this is important because I would respectfully suggest that GD is an excellent example of how leaving big business out of one's political map leaves you vulnerable to unanticipated misfortunes. It is no more sensible to say that corporations are your slaves because you choose which to patronise than it is to say that politicians are your slaves because they need you to vote for them.

 

Why does everyone assume I'm talking about anarchy? Why is there an assumption in a society where the govenrment does the minimum there is no law or criminal prosecution? I did not feel the need to qualify that because I thought it went withourt saying there is law enforcement under ANY government. True I'd pefer the limits to be light and restrained, a silken rope rather than iron chains. I guess the heart of the matter is you guys are cynical in the extreme about human behaviour, and think it needs to be controlled even at the expense of your own freedom. It makes no sense to me.

 

Now to address what Wals said. There is the absurd notion on this board that coporations are terrible evil things that want to enslave people and destroy the world. Further, most of you seem to think govenrment is this great altruistic champion of the down trodden and only wants whats best for everyone. That makes no sense to me at all. Microsoft cannot take a thing away from you. They cannot take you money, your home, your freedom or your life. They can only take what you freely give them by buying their products. And if you wish you can not but their products and give them nothing at all. Your government can take everything from you. Your home, your money, your freedom and your very life. In the US you do have due process protections on the last two (if you can afford it) but on the first two, the odds are very much against you.

 

If you don't believe me, just ask the citizens of New London CT, Klamath Falls OR, Rivera Beach FL, Covington TN, (I could go on all day) what the government can take away from you and give you nothing in return. Who should you really be afraid of here?

 

This whole notion of giving governments more and more power over individuals is self destructive to the point of insanity to me. I will NEVER understand it.

 

"Money" is not an inherent right. It is a social construction that evolved so human societies would be more stable. I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that society would be more successful if the collective did not have the right to demand money from the individual.

[Oblarg]

Corporations are after the same thing everybody else is: money. So why villainize them as opposed to everybody else's?

 

Because usually CEOs go about making money by exploiting people less fortunate (not necessarily less talented or able) than they.

[213374U]

Corporations are after the same thing everybody else is: money. So why villainize them as opposed to everybody else's?

Not villainizing anyone. But corporations are capable of more harm on their own than greedy individuals simply because they are well organized groups of people working in concert towards their goals. L'union fait la force and all... and often that union is used to shift responsibility from the individual.

 

It goes without saying that they are also capable of more good, too.

[Walsingham]

Numbers got there first.

 

I do not idolize government. Or at least I don't think I do. But I do believe you are being rather odd about corporations. Not only are corporations capable of killing you by with-holding services they claim a monopoly on like drugs or seedcorn, but they can kill through negligence as at Bhopal, and of course they can kill directly as with Blackwater or Ford Motors (in the union busting era). They can also take anything they want off you through legal process, including your home liberty etc etc.

 

That they do all these things in extremis is something I don't feel obliged to reference, but can if pushed. They can do all these things because they accumulate staggering wealth, and combine it with a diffused sense of responsibility and very poor legal accountability ...and that's before you get into the social psychology of their inadvertant mistakes.

 

This is important because in defence against corporations we the people are obliged to turn to government. Government can strangle the legal shenanigans they get up to, and can also apply direct force to get what it wants. It doesn't make the slightest damn difference if I tell Barclays I think they are wankers and i stop using them. Only collective action can.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Corporations are after the same thing everybody else is: money. So why villainize them as opposed to everybody else's?

Not villainizing anyone. But corporations are capable of more harm on their own than greedy individuals simply because they are well organized groups of people working in concert towards their goals. L'union fait la force and all... and often that union is used to shift responsibility from the individual.

 

It goes without saying that they are also capable of more good, too.

 

By your logic, then, governments can do far more harm than can corporations, and it just boils down to whose interests you prefer: those of business or those of government. I, for one, prefer business.

[Hurlshort]

We also could end up with a society where very few corporations run everything if we didn't have certain controls in place. Small businesses already face enough obstacles, without legal recourse they are pretty much sitting ducks. Take a look at Tivo and its dealing with Dish and DirectTV.