Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

General political discussion thread

823 replies to this topic
D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#121

Posted 17 January 2014 - 05:15 AM Edited by D- Ice, 17 January 2014 - 05:18 AM.

 

I'd also like to add a point about humanitarianism. I believe that humanitarian intervention is only justified if it is requested by (the majority of) the people being helped or being affected.

Historically, there have been many examples of expansionism being justified by notions of paternalistic humanitarianism - that is, forcing a culture, religion, political system etc... onto a people "for their own good."

Great humanitarian acts IMO would be to stop forcing women in Saudi to cover up, give them equal rights, and allow them to drive. But what if the majority of the populace categorically believe it will rain fire and brimstone if they allow these to happen? Would an intervention be justified? (In reality, most Saudis actually do want more liberal laws).

 

 

What if it was a dictator targeting a small sector of the population and eliminating them, but the majority of that country's populace supports the elimination of those people? 

 

Good question. Firstly I'll pretend the example is of a democratically elected government wanting to commit genocide on a minority - dictators are illegitimate representative of their nations regardless of popular support on some policies.

In either case, it means is that the people of that nation would think the genocide is the best option for them; doing something against this is therefore maleficent in their opinions. The disputed beneficence means you cannot claim the intervention is humanitarian to that nation (majority support is a litmus test for agreement on this).

You can however claim that it was humanitarian to that minority being saved, and perhaps the entirety of humanity - discounting the majority of that nation as loonies.

 

It is similar to doing something to a competent adult that they disagree with, and claiming it was for their best interests. It is just rather patronising. Though you can claim that it is for the better good of society.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#122

Posted 17 January 2014 - 12:14 PM Edited by Vlynor, 17 January 2014 - 12:14 PM.

 

 

I'd also like to add a point about humanitarianism. I believe that humanitarian intervention is only justified if it is requested by (the majority of) the people being helped or being affected.

Historically, there have been many examples of expansionism being justified by notions of paternalistic humanitarianism - that is, forcing a culture, religion, political system etc... onto a people "for their own good."

Great humanitarian acts IMO would be to stop forcing women in Saudi to cover up, give them equal rights, and allow them to drive. But what if the majority of the populace categorically believe it will rain fire and brimstone if they allow these to happen? Would an intervention be justified? (In reality, most Saudis actually do want more liberal laws).

 

 

What if it was a dictator targeting a small sector of the population and eliminating them, but the majority of that country's populace supports the elimination of those people? 

 

Good question. Firstly I'll pretend the example is of a democratically elected government wanting to commit genocide on a minority - dictators are illegitimate representative of their nations regardless of popular support on some policies.

In either case, it means is that the people of that nation would think the genocide is the best option for them; doing something against this is therefore maleficent in their opinions. The disputed beneficence means you cannot claim the intervention is humanitarian to that nation (majority support is a litmus test for agreement on this).

You can however claim that it was humanitarian to that minority being saved, and perhaps the entirety of humanity - discounting the majority of that nation as loonies.

 

It is similar to doing something to a competent adult that they disagree with, and claiming it was for their best interests. It is just rather patronising. Though you can claim that it is for the better good of society.

 

 

Fair enough. I consider myself a non-interventionist but I constantly disagree with myself when it comes to that. If there is a genocide or a targeting of a specific group(s) of individuals, I believe that calls for intervention. Not just from the United States or the United Kingdom or France, but from the whole of the U.N. or NATO or whichever group appears next and claims to protect humanity.

 

Question for all who care to answer:

 

What is your opinion on firearm laws in the United States? Do you believe certain restrictions need to be in place and if so, what and why? If not, why not? I ask because I've just seen an article that claimed Harvey Weinstein, a film producer, is planning on creating a film with Meryl Streep specifically targeting the National Rifle Association. Do you believe that's a good approach? 

  • D- Ice likes this

TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    a.k.a. MrCamTheMan

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#123

Posted 24 February 2014 - 11:41 PM

Right leaning, Republican. Why? Because I love democracy and the free market.

  • gtamann123 likes this

Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#124

Posted 24 February 2014 - 11:49 PM Edited by Omnia sunt Communia, 24 February 2014 - 11:50 PM.

I feel strange posting in here without joining in with the on-going discussions, but I'm not sure how far back they started and I don't feel like reverse reading through all five pages right now.

 

I guess I'll just post in here to say that I am an anarchist communist. Since I've seen the world anarchism thrown around a couple of times by Melchoir I assume I don't need to explain it to anybody. And in case anybody is wondering, the text in my avatar is Ukrainian and says: "Death to all who stand in the way of freedom for working people!" I think that sums up my politics quite nicely (and no, I'm not Ukrainian).


TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    a.k.a. MrCamTheMan

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#125

Posted 24 February 2014 - 11:58 PM

I feel strange posting in here without joining in with the on-going discussions, but I'm not sure how far back they started and I don't feel like reverse reading through all five pages right now.

 

I guess I'll just post in here to say that I am an anarchist communist. Since I've seen the world anarchism thrown around a couple of times by Melchoir I assume I don't need to explain it to anybody. And in case anybody is wondering, the text in my avatar is Ukrainian and says: "Death to all who stand in the way of freedom for working people!" I think that sums up my politics quite nicely (and no, I'm not Ukrainian).

Standing in the way of freedom for working people? 


Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#126

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:05 AM

 

I feel strange posting in here without joining in with the on-going discussions, but I'm not sure how far back they started and I don't feel like reverse reading through all five pages right now.

 

I guess I'll just post in here to say that I am an anarchist communist. Since I've seen the world anarchism thrown around a couple of times by Melchoir I assume I don't need to explain it to anybody. And in case anybody is wondering, the text in my avatar is Ukrainian and says: "Death to all who stand in the way of freedom for working people!" I think that sums up my politics quite nicely (and no, I'm not Ukrainian).

Standing in the way of freedom for working people? 

 

 

Yes, those who stand in the way of the working class achieving their full potential (i.e. communism). Those people are also known as capitalists.

 

Also, I decided to take that political compass test, for the 100th time. Same result as always:

 

rMIFrQ3.png


TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    a.k.a. MrCamTheMan

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#127

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:09 AM

 

 

I feel strange posting in here without joining in with the on-going discussions, but I'm not sure how far back they started and I don't feel like reverse reading through all five pages right now.

 

I guess I'll just post in here to say that I am an anarchist communist. Since I've seen the world anarchism thrown around a couple of times by Melchoir I assume I don't need to explain it to anybody. And in case anybody is wondering, the text in my avatar is Ukrainian and says: "Death to all who stand in the way of freedom for working people!" I think that sums up my politics quite nicely (and no, I'm not Ukrainian).

Standing in the way of freedom for working people? 

 

 

Yes, those who stand in the way of the working class achieving their full potential (i.e. communism). Those people are also known as capitalists.

 

Also, I decided to take that political compass test, for the 100th time. Same result as always:

 

rMIFrQ3.png

 

How do capitalists stand in the way of workers?


Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#128

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:19 AM

How do capitalists stand in the way of workers?

 

 

Capitalists control the means of production which are necessary to create all that we need to survive. The working class is forced to sell their labour to the capitalists in exchange for a wage in order to buy these things. This is the capitalist mode of production. The issue with this economic system is that it prevents the working class from accessing everything they need, this is despite the fact that the working class - as a whole - creates all wealth within our society. Without us, society would cease to function and capitalists would no longer be able to make a profit from our labour.

 

Capitalism must be done away with in order to achieve the upmost possible freedom for everybody because without it there would be no obstacles to accessing everything we need to live. Capitalists prevent this from happening, because their system cannot work without the existence of the working class, you cannot have prosperity without poverty in a capitalist system. That is why that we must confront them, in the form of a revolution, and seize control of the means of productions. If they resist they will be considered an enemy of freedom and the working class and be dealt with accordingly.


WBaker
  • WBaker

    Acatalepsis

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#129

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:24 AM Edited by WBaker, 25 February 2014 - 12:25 AM.

You can't do away with the working class. If people didn't make widgets and clean floors we'd have no widgets and dirty floors. Communism has never been implemented in a pure form so at best it's untested with really bad false starts. Capitalism has at least been viable.

Bad speelers of the wurld untie!

Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#130

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:34 AM

The working class exist only in contrast to the capitalist class as the class of people with no property of their own. The aim of communism is not to do away with the working class, but to do away with classes altogether. The means of production will be owned communally and people will work them in order to fulfill the needs of their community, not out of necessity, or to create profit for their bosses.

 

We may not have achieved full communism yet, but that is because for communism to succeed you we need to have a worldwide revolution in order to do away with the global capitalist class. There has been times where we have come close though, like Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War; the Free Terroritories in Ukraine during the Russian Civil War and the Shinmin Commune in Korea. Whenever communism has formed, the capitalist class has fought to destroy it, and sadly they won. But until the power balance lies in the hands of the capitalists, and not the working class, communism is not possible.


TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    a.k.a. MrCamTheMan

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#131

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:35 AM

Why most people dislike communism: Everybody earns the same amount of money no matter what their occupation is.

 

 

 

 


Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#132

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:37 AM Edited by Omnia sunt Communia, 25 February 2014 - 12:37 AM.

Why most people dislike communism: Everybody earns the same amount of money no matter what their occupation is.

 

 

Actually, in communism, nobody would earn a wage, because there would be no money. People would work and be free to take from the common stock whatever they desired.


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#133

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:43 AM

 

Why most people dislike communism: Everybody earns the same amount of money no matter what their occupation is.

 

 

Actually, in communism, nobody would earn a wage, because there would be no money. People would work and be free to take from the common stock whatever they desired.

 

Yeah because that totally would work. :blink:  There cant be unlimited resources. Nobody could just take whatever they desired from the common stock. What if someone desired 10 million loaves of bread and 6 million rolls of TP? The only way to regulate this would be through rationing. And in your ideal world a Brain surgeon would receive the same amount of rations and have the same material wealth as a toilet cleaner. Because that totally make sense and gives people incentive to put in the work to become a brain surgeon as opposed to cleaning toilets........... :facedesk:

  • I<3GTAV and TheGreenSadler like this

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Ich liebe dich.

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States

#134

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:44 AM

 

Why most people dislike communism: Everybody earns the same amount of money no matter what their occupation is.

 

 

Actually, in communism, nobody would earn a wage, because there would be no money. People would work and be free to take from the common stock whatever they desired.

 

But surely that system can be abused, no? I can go out and wipe entire stores clean of their end tables. Then I'll have many, many end tables while everybody else has none.


Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#135

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:45 AM

I agree on the fact that we are slave of the money in the sh*ttiest system ever implemented: capitalism.

Not sure though if "pure" communism would be the solution.

Just like every human ideology communism has a lot of flaws.

The main flaw is that an ideology created by human beings is bound to have the same flaws of human beings who are famous for not being flawless beings. ;)


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#136

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:45 AM Edited by Raavi, 25 February 2014 - 12:49 AM.

 

Why most people dislike communism: Everybody earns the same amount of money no matter what their occupation is.

 

 

Actually, in communism, nobody would earn a wage, because there would be no money. People would work and be free to take from the common stock whatever they desired.

 

 

And everybody would all live happily ever after, except for the fact that the thirst for more is human nature and no political ideology can change that. Furthermore what incentive would there be to thrive? I mean if a neurosurgeon earns as much as a nightman.. Money is and will always be the main incentive to thrive.

  • Doc Rikowski likes this

TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    a.k.a. MrCamTheMan

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#137

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:46 AM

 

Why most people dislike communism: Everybody earns the same amount of money no matter what their occupation is.

 

 

Actually, in communism, nobody would earn a wage, because there would be no money. People would work and be free to take from the common stock whatever they desired.

 

You have to be joking. The stocks would eventually run out, especially since people would be able take whatever they want.


Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#138

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:55 AM

 

 

Why most people dislike communism: Everybody earns the same amount of money no matter what their occupation is.

 

 

Actually, in communism, nobody would earn a wage, because there would be no money. People would work and be free to take from the common stock whatever they desired.

 

Yeah because that totally would work. :blink:  There cant be unlimited resources. Nobody could just take whatever they desired from the common stock. What if someone desired 10 million loaves of bread and 6 million rolls of TP? The only way to regulate this would be through rationing. And in your ideal world a Brain surgeon would receive the same amount of rations and have the same material wealth as a toilet cleaner. Because that totally make sense and gives people incentive to put in the work to become a brain surgeon as opposed to cleaning toilets........... :facedesk:

 

 

What use would somebody have for 10 millions loaves of bread and 6 million rolls of toilet paper? Communism is based on the guiding principle: "From each according their ability, to each according their need". There may not be unlimited resources, but there is definietly enough for everybody to live comfortably, for everybody to at least have access to the basics necessary to survive (i.e. food, water, clothing, shelter).

 

And the incentive to become a brain surgeon, or a doctor, or any other profession, would either be because that person desires to fill that role or because they want to benefit their community. If you speak to the majority of doctors I'm sure they would tell you that they do it because they want to help people. And the incentive to clean toilets is the same, but nobody wants to be stuck cleaning toilets their whole life, so I would imagine some sort of rota system would be decided on for the less favourable jobs. Or automation. The technology already it exists, it is only capitalism that prevents it from being full utilised.

 

But surely that system can be abused, no? I can go out and wipe entire stores clean of their end tables. Then I'll have many, many end tables while everybody else has none.

 

 

And what would you do with the entire community's stock of end tables? And more importantly, why would you want the entire community's stock of end tables?

 

I agree on the fact that we are slave of the money in the sh*ttiest system ever implemented: capitalism.

Not sure though if "pure" communism would be the solution.

Just like every human ideology communism has a lot of flaws.

The main flaw is that an ideology created by human beings is bound to have the same flaws of human beings who are famous for not being flawless beings. ;)

 

Capitalism is far more flawed than communism.

 

 

And everybody would all live happily ever after, except for the fact that the thirst for more is human nature and no political ideology can change that.

 

 

Human nature is a strange concept, because it always argues that capitalism is natural, despite only being the dominant economic ideology for the last couple of hundred years. Evolutionary biologist Peter Kropotkin actually argued that co-operation is actually in humanity's best interest (this is essentially what Darwin argued also, despite what Social Darwinists might tell you). Competition is created and facilitated by capitalism. If human nature does exist (and lots of people a lot smarter than you or I say that it doesn't), capitalism definietly isn't it.

 

You have to be joking. The stocks would eventually run out, especially since people would be able take whatever they want.

 

 

 

 

Then we make more...


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Ich liebe dich.

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States

#139

Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:59 AM

 

But surely that system can be abused, no? I can go out and wipe entire stores clean of their end tables. Then I'll have many, many end tables while everybody else has none.

 

 

And what would you do with the entire community's stock of end tables? And more importantly, why would you want the entire community's stock of end tables?

 

I'll make a fort in my living room with all of the end tables. After all, more end tables will be made, right? Surely there isn't a difference in me taking either two or twenty end tables for my fort I'm planning on building in the living room of my commie-block apartment.

 

midrise.jpg


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#140

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:02 AM Edited by gtamann123, 25 February 2014 - 01:04 AM.


 


But surely that system can be abused, no? I can go out and wipe entire stores clean of their end tables. Then I'll have many, many end tables while everybody else has none.
 

 
And what would you do with the entire community's stock of end tables? And more importantly, why would you want the entire community's stock of end tables?
 
I'll make a fort in my living room with all of the end tables. After all, more end tables will be made, right? Surely there isn't a difference in me taking either two or twenty end tables for my fort I'm planning on building in the living room of my commie-block apartment.
 
midrise.jpg
I would clean out the stock of end tables simply because I can. The only thing that is currently stopping me from going down to my local store and taking all of their end tables is because I dont have the money. But since money doesn't exist anymore what's stopping me? Communism is impossible to achieve without rationing. And equal rationing among all people destroys incentive to thrive. Thus creating a stagnant society with no innovation and forward progress in technology or industry. Thus creating a lower standard of living.

TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    a.k.a. MrCamTheMan

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#141

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:03 AM

"Then we make more"

 

L f*cking O f*cking L

 

Make more? seriously?

  • gtamann123 likes this

Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#142

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:04 AM

 

 

I feel strange posting in here without joining in with the on-going discussions, but I'm not sure how far back they started and I don't feel like reverse reading through all five pages right now.

 

I guess I'll just post in here to say that I am an anarchist communist. Since I've seen the world anarchism thrown around a couple of times by Melchoir I assume I don't need to explain it to anybody. And in case anybody is wondering, the text in my avatar is Ukrainian and says: "Death to all who stand in the way of freedom for working people!" I think that sums up my politics quite nicely (and no, I'm not Ukrainian).

Standing in the way of freedom for working people? 

 

 

Yes, those who stand in the way of the working class achieving their full potential (i.e. communism). Those people are also known as capitalists.

 

Also, I decided to take that political compass test, for the 100th time. Same result as always:

 

rMIFrQ3.png

 

F*cking disgusting centrist...you couldn't even make it that last couple of squares you hairy hillbilly fascist.

  • Omnia sunt Communia and Melchior like this

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#143

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:05 AM Edited by Raavi, 25 February 2014 - 01:07 AM.

Human nature is a strange concept, because it always argues that capitalism is natural, despite only being the dominant economic ideology for the last couple of hundred years. Evolutionary biologist Peter Kropotkin actually argued that co-operation is actually in humanity's best interest (this is essentially what Darwin argued also, despite what Social Darwinists might tell you). Competition is created and facilitated by capitalism. If human nature does exist (and lots of people a lot smarter than you or I say that it doesn't), capitalism definietly isn't it. 

 

Human behavior isn't dictated by political ideologies, at its most pure form its dictated by primal instincts and the like. Competition and the always prevalent thirst for more can be traced back thousands of years, enough is a concept we never able to quite grasp, which arguably is more positive than negative. There never has, nor ever will be a feasible concept in which everyone is truly equal. Survival of the fittest will always be evident in some way shape or form.


Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#144

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:06 AM

 

 

 

But surely that system can be abused, no? I can go out and wipe entire stores clean of their end tables. Then I'll have many, many end tables while everybody else has none.
 

 
And what would you do with the entire community's stock of end tables? And more importantly, why would you want the entire community's stock of end tables?
 
I'll make a fort in my living room with all of the end tables. After all, more end tables will be made, right? Surely there isn't a difference in me taking either two or twenty end tables for my fort I'm planning on building in the living room of my commie-block apartment.
 
-snip-

I would clean out the stock of end tables simply because I can. The only thing that is currently stopping me from going down to my local store and taking all of their end tables is because I dont have the money. But since money doesn't exist anymore what's stopping me? Communism is impossible to achieve without rationing. And equal rationing among all people destroys incentive to thrive.

 

 

If you felt the need to deprieve the community of their entire supply of a certain item, don't be surprised when they come to reclaim them. What incentive would you have to do so, apart from trying to create some sort of illogical scenario to try and prove communism wrong?

 

"Then we make more"

 

L f*cking O f*cking L

 

Make more? seriously?

 

Yes, do you not understand how production works?


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#145

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:10 AM Edited by gtamann123, 25 February 2014 - 01:11 AM.


 

 

 

But surely that system can be abused, no? I can go out and wipe entire stores clean of their end tables. Then I'll have many, many end tables while everybody else has none.
 

 
And what would you do with the entire community's stock of end tables? And more importantly, why would you want the entire community's stock of end tables?
 
I'll make a fort in my living room with all of the end tables. After all, more end tables will be made, right? Surely there isn't a difference in me taking either two or twenty end tables for my fort I'm planning on building in the living room of my commie-block apartment.
 
-snip-
I would clean out the stock of end tables simply because I can. The only thing that is currently stopping me from going down to my local store and taking all of their end tables is because I dont have the money. But since money doesn't exist anymore what's stopping me? Communism is impossible to achieve without rationing. And equal rationing among all people destroys incentive to thrive.
 
 
If you felt the need to deprieve the community of their entire supply of a certain item, don't be surprised when they come to reclaim them. What incentive would you have to do so, apart from trying to create some sort of illogical scenario to try and prove communism wrong?
 

"Then we make more"
 
L f*cking O f*cking L
 
Make more? seriously?

 
Yes, do you not understand how production works?
Because human nature drives people to acquire as much wealth as possible? If you can have everything in the world for free why wouldnt you take it? Or in a communist world would every member of society all of a sudden become a collevtivist overnight? There will be greedy people no matter what the political system
  • Raavi and TheGreenSadler like this

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#146

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:11 AM

Even under the best case scenario, communism would be severely inefficient to the point of throwing everyone into abject poverty (and starve a large chunk of them to death). In the absence of price signals, you have no capacity to make rational allocations of the scarce resources you have. How much steel should be used to make cars as opposed to chainsaws, or bolts, or stoves? How much steel should even be produced? How do you know that all the men you have mining iron wouldn't be more productive logging?

  • gtamann123 and TheGreenSadler like this

TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    a.k.a. MrCamTheMan

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#147

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:12 AM

Pal, money is what motivates people to thrive.

  • gtamann123, Raavi and Frank Brown like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#148

Posted 25 February 2014 - 03:06 AM

I'm not a communist by any means, but I think free access is a fundamentally good idea. Some of the arguments here are downright silly. "People will horde furniture"? Why would you horde furniture if you have unlimited access to furniture anyway?

 

To say that free access isn't viable any time soon is fair enough, and I agree, but to say it's inherently infeasible because human nature is to horde pointless crap for no reason is absolutely ridiculous. Further, there's a wealth of difference between "human nature" and an economic system that's seeped into our psychology. 


Even under the best case scenario, communism would be severely inefficient to the point of throwing everyone into abject poverty (and starve a large chunk of them to death). In the absence of price signals, you have no capacity to make rational allocations of the scarce resources you have. How much steel should be used to make cars as opposed to chainsaws, or bolts, or stoves? How much steel should even be produced? How do you know that all the men you have mining iron wouldn't be more productive logging?

How does corporate capitalism not have the same problems as pure command economy, though? If the most powerful entities in our society profit by making cheese burgers and romantic comedies, they aren't going to stop, and will go to great lengths to continue doing so, whether or not people try to "vote with their feet."

 

If you think you live in anything resembling a proper market system, you've got some waking up to do.

  • Omnia sunt Communia likes this

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#149

Posted 25 February 2014 - 03:06 AM

I'm not a communist by any means, but I think free access is a fundamentally good idea. Some of the arguments here are downright silly. "People will horde furniture"? Why would you horde furniture if you have unlimited access to furniture anyway?

 

To say that free access isn't viable any time soon is fair enough, and I agree, but to say it's inherently infeasible because human nature is to horde pointless crap for no reason is absolutely ridiculous. Further, there's a wealth of difference between "human nature" and an economic system that's seeped into our psychology. 

Free access to some basic things yes. But free access to everything is just ridiculous. 

  • Frank Brown likes this

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#150

Posted 25 February 2014 - 03:08 AM Edited by Nale Dixon, 25 February 2014 - 03:09 AM.

Even under the best case scenario, communism would be severely inefficient to the point of throwing everyone into abject poverty (and starve a large chunk of them to death). In the absence of price signals, you have no capacity to make rational allocations of the scarce resources you have. How much steel should be used to make cars as opposed to chainsaws, or bolts, or stoves? How much steel should even be produced? How do you know that all the men you have mining iron wouldn't be more productive logging?

Yeah I mean, remember how everyone in Cuba and Venezuela starved to death? and those people in the millions and millions of communes around the world? Oh and the EZLN in Mexico and Freetown Christiana? and the Mormons? Remember how they all don't exist because everyone starved to death?

 

Yeah.

 

 

 

I'm not a communist by any means, but I think free access is a fundamentally good idea. Some of the arguments here are downright silly. "People will horde furniture"? Why would you horde furniture if you have unlimited access to furniture anyway?

 

To say that free access isn't viable any time soon is fair enough, and I agree, but to say it's inherently infeasible because human nature is to horde pointless crap for no reason is absolutely ridiculous. Further, there's a wealth of difference between "human nature" and an economic system that's seeped into our psychology. 

Free access to some basic things yes. But free access to everything is just ridiculous. 

 

Care to expand on that?

  • Omnia sunt Communia likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users