Qhimm.com Forums
Off-topic forums => Completely Unrelated => Topic started by: Kudistos Megistos on 2010-06-10 21:52:17
-
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
I wonder how the qhimmsters will come out on this test, should any of them take it. ;D
(http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/129/pcgraphpngphp.png)
Pic related; it's where I came. I'm a classical liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism), so no major politicians support my views :'(
No, srsly. Believing that the government should stop telling people what to do and should keep out of everyone's pockets seems, or rather, believing in "the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets" seems to be a more marginal position in global politics nowadays than hardcore communism. Apparently, everyone in the world is either a socialist or a conservative and I'm some kind of freak. The only people who seem to share my views are those paranoid Americans with thousands of guns who think that there's going to be a revolution some time soon, and I'm sure that they're just conservatives who got turned off by the religious right.
Anyway, enough ranting. I'll wait and see if anyone else takes the test.
BTW, I kind of get the idea that there's a little bit of a left-wing bias from some of the questions; asking people whether they think it's sad that water is a consumer product or whether businesses should be penalised for misleading the public seems to be trying to force the test taker to go with the more economically left-wing option.
-
My results.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.88&soc=0.72)
It appears Im somewhere in between ghandi and stalin.....(closer to ghandi though :) ... :( I like to be mean sometimes)
-
>social authoritarian
>economic left
You commie-nazi! :D
(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2739/commienazis1252109234.jpg)
-
I was gonna take this, but I just found myself answering "I really have no idea, doesn't matter to me"... (Clearly not the case for the racial supremacy questions xD)
...What does that make me? D:
-
I was gonna take this, but I just found myself answering "I really have no idea, doesn't matter to me"... (Clearly not the case for the racial supremacy questions xD)
...What does that make me? D:
It makes you like everyone else in this country, especially at our age :'(
(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4677/worcestervoterlikelihoo.jpg)
Of course, British apathy is likely to be the result of the fact that our parties are all the same. I wish we had some nice, polarised American-style politics; then there'd be a difference between the parties and a reason to choose one over the other.
-
None.
It's late and I'm about to go to bed, but here's the issue in a nutshell.
I believe that at the current historical - material moment, there is a particular hegemony built around a mode of individualism we've inherited from the early 19th century. This system of meaning models human beings as their interior 'selves' - inviolable kernels of attributes such as will to work and idleness - and 'hopes' that socio-economic reality will reflect that. In actuality, it's not as simple as that. People's fortunes are shaped by far more, and by chains of causality far larger than the individual.
There are three responses to this. Let's take the test case of inheritance tax. Is it fair for someone to put others' children at a relative disadvantage by bequeathing an estate? The three answers are:
1. Yes. This helps the individual be rewarded for his lack of 'idleness', a part of his inherent characteristics which should be rewarded (the 'right')
2. No. It prevents the individual from being rewarded for his lack of 'idleness', a part of his inherent characteristics which should be rewarded (the 'Left' - note the capital).
3. 2 almost sees the bigger picture, but fails at the last hurdle. He sees an issue with the hegemony, but doesn't see that he's still applying its flawed, corrupt, self-contradictory and historically contingent 'language'. 1 and 2 are simply making manifest the two contradictory implications of the same system of meaning. This suggests it is invalid, as does the fact it seems tied only to our own, specific period of history.
1 is a Conservative. 2 is a Leftist. 3 is a Marxist.
1 hopes the difficulties of the hegemony will go away by themselves.
2 sees difficulties, but hopes to use social engineering (the taxation of unearned incomes, for example) to create a world that matches the Ideology (the 'system of meaning' contained in the prevailing Hegemony).
3 thinks 1 and 2 are simply echoing each other. Their arguments are irresolvable not because the issue is, for whatever reason, too 'hard', but because they are simply bashing out the inherent flaws in a system of meaning that doesn't work in a world where, as I said before, chains of causality extend beyond the individual.
I am probably closest to the third camp.
--
Incidentally, this is the only reason we have a 'problem' of free will in our philosophy departments. The 'problem' is 'how can we have Will when we are the products of causal threads far older and larger than ourselves'. We can't attach to people attributes 'beyond the kernel of the self', so we can't get our heads around it. The solution, of course, is to accept that even when our qualities, experiences and personal attributes are the products of 'things bigger' than our own lives, they are nevertheless inalienably ours.
I suspect be at least a century before this 'solution' gets integrated into common sentiment. Of course, that age will have its own self-contradictory paradigm, falling apart at the seams, and the hideous, lurching polka will no doubt start all over again.
--
Right. That's it. I'm going to bed. I'm exhausted.
Also, whilst I'm here, just to p*** KM off - the answer was just that the Greeks were terribly obsessed with moments where the boundaries between individuals are broken. See: screaming, mass crying, birthing and ritual eating (food sharing, spectre of cannibalism as per Agamemnon. You didn't think the similarities between an Ox-like King's demise and a crowned cow being led to sacrificial bath were coincidence, did you?).
So, yeah, that was the answer to Tripos. Hope you got it ; )
-
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/507/pcgraphpngphpec475soc2.png) (http://img823.imageshack.us/i/pcgraphpngphpec475soc2.png/)
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.62&soc=-0.15)
I'm for the class system, and to save the enviroment ;D I sorta have mixed opinions on various things. Like the abortion question. Problem I have with abortion is where is the father's choice? As to primary school, I do believe it should train us in job basics. Heck have the kids start out working in some way. I don't care if it's creating picture frames, entertainment, or accounting. I also do feel that we should control reproduction of people. There are just some who should not breed. We need to control how companies treat the enviroment. I also think what you pay for is what you should get. People that are able to work but don't through their own choice shouldn't receive our support. Heck I went back to work with a busted shoulder blade over getting paid $900-1200 per month for the rest of my life.
And I'll probably go on with my rant so shutting up now.
-
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/507/pcgraphpngphpec475soc2.png) (http://img823.imageshack.us/i/pcgraphpngphpec475soc2.png/)
I'm surprised you aren't more Authoritarian.
-
It is all based on what I am looking at. My views of society differ from the views of this forum. This is Qhimm's forums. He is the absolute ruler. As this is not a democracy here my views are skewed from what i would expect from a democratic society like the one where i live.
-
I already know I'm like, 100% on social freedoms, and I only know that I think anarchy is inferior and communism entirely non-functional on the economic freedoms. Can't be bothered to take the test, so yeah, social ultra-hippie who openly admits he has almost no idea economically. If forced to describe myself in one word, at gunpoint, however, I'm more likely to say libertarian than socialist.
By the way I think everyone who's closer to authoritarian is some kind of horrible stupid person.
-
I'm the closest! I'm horrible and stupid?
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-2.12&soc=0.00) I'm a bit old school with social structure. not really a proponent of gay marriage/adoption. though i do support free choice (abortion!!!) and some limitations upon the corporate world (otherwise there'd be oil spills all over the place).
last time i took this i got almost dead centre.
EDIT: there's a rightwing side and a leftwing side to it O________O. Asking about bottled water is countered for example, do you feel nationality blah blah blah 1st generation immigration blah blah blah. imo it's pretty balanced.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-2.75&soc=-1.28)
Interesting quiz.
-
What? Everyone's a commie-nazi! Srsly, am I the most socially liberal person here? That's just scary! :mrgreen:
EDIT: there's a rightwing side and a leftwing side to it O________O. Asking about bottled water is countered for example, do you feel nationality blah blah blah 1st generation immigration blah blah blah. imo it's pretty balanced.
The problem with the bottled water example is that it is something quite emotive and it's likely that even an economically right wing person will agree that it's sad; the two examples you give aren't counter examples because people on either side of the spectrum will vote in different ways.
I'm the closest! I'm horrible and stupid?
You've answered your own question! :D
I also look forward to arguing with Bosola when he wakes up :P. The rest of you might want to skip posts of ours that are responses to each other; it will be frighteningly dull if you're not an Oxbridge philosopher.
As you might be able to infer from the OP, we differ greatly on the respective merits of Marxism and the current "hegemony". My position on the latter is summed up by Churchill's comment on democracy:
No one pretends that democracy the evil hegemony ;D is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy the evil hegemony is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
At the moment, I'm going through a phase in my philosophical thought where I am obsessed with practicality and things actually working in practice, so my defences of our current system, a certain level of liberal democracy mixed with a certain level of economic freedom, is that it has generally been far more successful than anything else, and certainly more successful than any of the attempts at Marxism that have been made.
And yes, I'm aware that none of the states that have commonly been called communist over the past century have been what Marx had in mind. That's the point; the transition from ivory towers to real life has not been smooth, whereas attempts to implement the ideals of liberalism and the free market, whilst not creating the perfectly fair meritocratic utopia they have promised, have nevertheless been closer to the ideal than the attempts to implement the ideals of Marxism.
-
btw, seeing as i believe in regulation, i would be a socialist freak :-D i believe in regulation because 1) monopolies 2) great depression 3) quality control 4) social/enviromental concerns. 1) and 2) speak for themselves. Quality Control --> Look at China, it's more deregulated than the US, every other month you hear about lead in paint or hormones in milk and other things. 4) Social + enviromental, look at BP's oil spill. or for example wages --> until labour laws were established classical liberal America had children working in factories, and an entire family worked 14 hour days 7 days a week just to barely put food on the table. Nowadays, I believe the government must regulate the economy to some degree. Else it leads to some sort of problem. The most infamous case of classical liberalism gone awry is known as the great depression.
-
btw, seeing as i believe in regulation, i would be a socialist freak :-D i believe in regulation because 1) monopolies 2) great depression 3) quality control 4) social/enviromental concerns. 1) and 2) speak for themselves. Quality Control --> Look at China, it's more deregulated than the US, every other month you hear about lead in paint or hormones in milk and other things. 4) Social + enviromental, look at BP's oil spill. or for example wages --> until labour laws were established classical liberal America had children working in factories, and an entire family worked 14 hour days 7 days a week just to barely put food on the table. Nowadays, I believe the government must regulate the economy to some degree. Else it leads to some sort of problem. The most infamous case of classical liberalism gone awry is known as the great depression.
And the most infamous case of governments who tell people what to do and thinking they knew better than the people going awry is that thing that happened ten years after the great depression ;D
Oh, and a sizeable number of economists would greatly disagree with the idea that the great depression was caused by underregulation by the government, but I have a theory that most people's opinions of the causes of things like this will actually be cases of them trying to use it as a way to support their own philosophy.
-
I got bored so I randomly started clicking answers.
(http://turboimg.com/p/keh1276215181b.png)
-
Well... yay for unoriginality. I thought I'd be more of a libertarian than that. I'm pretty open-minded... but I guess I do agree that there *needs* to be discipline and authority in order to have a functioning community. Often I find that with no authority figure, even in tiny groups, there is little to no organization and order. Ok now I'm wondering why I'm not more authoritarian. :P
(http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/994/picture10uk.png)
-
btw, seeing as i believe in regulation, i would be a socialist freak :-D i believe in regulation because 1) monopolies 2) great depression 3) quality control 4) social/enviromental concerns. 1) and 2) speak for themselves. Quality Control --> Look at China, it's more deregulated than the US, every other month you hear about lead in paint or hormones in milk and other things. 4) Social + enviromental, look at BP's oil spill. or for example wages --> until labour laws were established classical liberal America had children working in factories, and an entire family worked 14 hour days 7 days a week just to barely put food on the table. Nowadays, I believe the government must regulate the economy to some degree. Else it leads to some sort of problem. The most infamous case of classical liberalism gone awry is known as the great depression.
And the most infamous case of governments who tell people what to do and thinking they knew better than the people going awry is that thing that happened ten years after the great depression ;D
Oh, and a sizeable number of economists would greatly disagree with the idea that the great depression was caused by underregulation by the government, but I have a theory that most people's opinions of the causes of things like this will actually be cases of them trying to use it as a way to support their own philosophy.
actually, i don't think you can criticize the idea behind communism. let's not jump the gun and automatically think communism = evil. (i'm not pro-communism, i believe the soviets had a very disgusting form of communism; gulags anyone?), it's just that the idea behind communism was horribly executed and infringed on basic freedoms. I personally do not believe that the economy should have that many regulations and control measures upon it. just enough to ensure prosperity and safety. Not regulation to the point of communism. my belief is that the government should guide the economy, not control it. look at the various labour laws passed in the United States since the industrial revolution. Child Labour, Minimum wage, maternity leave, paid vacation, etc etc. All government influence in business. Or perhaps product screening. The FDA screens many drugs, and requires a fair amount of testing before a drug is released to the public. I'm a bodybuilder, and protein supplements are a fantastic example. when you buy them they say "statements not evaluated by the FDA." some companies are actually quite shady and the products sometimes can be .... subpar to say the least. half of the products they come out with hardly do a thing over the old version. Creatine Monohydrate does more than CEE or liquid creatine (both proven to be LESS effective) yet companies still come out with these newfangled creatine products that are supposedly an upgrade over good ole creatine monohydrate. The lack of FDA guidance means XXX company can just put "proven to add 100 pound in 1 month" and will not suffer any legal consequences. Hell, some of the stuff supplement companies release can be downright toxic and they still wouldn't have to worry too much. FDA helps us alot. Rarely there will be drugs that pass FDA inspection and it is later found that it is harmful to health. I remember the vioxx incident from a few years back. Oh man, they got sued for tons because it killed a bunch of people. Now just imagine if there was no FDA to regulate drugs, imagine the amount of lethal and dangerous drugs out there. Vioxx would be a daily occurrence. Expect to see 11 finger infants, sterile adults, genetic mutation and everything in between.
------
It's generally accepted that Hoover inaction led to the Depression b/c he strongly believed in laissez-faire and did not feel like interfering in what he believed was not the governments responsibility. He saw the imminent economic peril, yet chose to stand and watch rather than act. Roosevelts claim to fame, was a stronger government presence in the US. FDIC (federally insured banks) and government programs led to a huge drop in unemployment.
-
About as exciting as it gets
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-.88&soc=-0.05)
-
No shock for me... Well, I actually thought I might be even more left, and a little less libertarian. Edit: Me and the Dalai Lama - I'm okay with that!
(http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/5285/pcgraphpngphpec575soc4.png)
-
lots of stuff
(http://th04.deviantart.com/fs38/300W/i/2008/322/6/c/Grammar_Natzee__Wall_O___Text_by_dinyctis.jpg)
-
you're right, come to think of it, i probably won't read anyones response to me either =P. i came back to the topic to change my post cause i'm too lazy to get into a debate.
-
No shock for me... Well, I actually thought I might be even more left, and a little less libertarian. Edit: Me and the Dalai Lama - I'm okay with that!
Well, at least you're another liberal here. :) Pity about the left-wing economic stuff :(
lots of stuff
Here's the thing. Nearly everyone agrees that some kind of government intervention is necessary and most people agree that the government shouldn't regulate everything. The questions are "to what extent?" should the government interfere and "why?". That is where we differ. Since you're not going to read a thorough rebuttal, I shan't write one, but I do think that you should bare in mind that democratisation has generally lead to advancement and authoritarian governments thinking that they know what's best have generally done the opposite. It's true that bubbles won't burst as often if there is greater government regulation, but economies won't advance as quickly either, so there won't be any bubbles to burst; if you never climb any ladders then you can't fall off. I'll also remind you that free market economies tend to recover very quickly after crashes. Not long after the great depression, the US was stronger than ever. After the second world war, West Germany recovered far more quickly than the East; ditto for South and North Korea. Of course, there are other variables here, but I think that, after taking a look at how capitalist countries have generally performed and grown over the past 100 years and comparing them to countries with a great deal of government control over the economy, you'll see that the benefits of a free market tend outweigh the costs when the systems are put into practice.
-
I'm the closest! I'm horrible and stupid?
As the only person to be further to that side, yes, of course! Or at least to the best of my judgment you're of a demonstrably horrible and stupid opinion on one matter.
And we all know a persons worth can be estimated from a single event!
I could probably find something to argue with what Kudistos is saying that I would actually be interested in, like, going into in depth, or possibly I think he's brilliant, right now I'm too tired to even read his small wall of text and am going to bed.
I will say to OutFoxxed, who I admittedly only read one sentence of one post from, that I can criticize the ideal behind communism very reasonably and very concisely: I hate slavery, and I especially hate it when every single citizen is a slave to a small number of people, something that is absolutely necessary for communism. If human nature were such that it weren't necessary, communism would be redundant anyway because people would already be behaving the way communism hopes to get them to behave in an anarchistic society.
-
I ended up in about the same place as The Seer of Shadows. I was bothered by the ambiguity of some of the questions though. A number of them were worded such that it was difficult to tell if the word "only" was implied, which would completely change my answer.
One that particularly caught my attention was: "A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption."
I chose strongly disagree, but not out of anything against homosexual couples, rather, mostly because I feel children should have a mother AND a father, role models of both genders, something which is entirely lacking if both genders are the same sex. The thing is, I don't think that my reason is what the maker of this quiz had in mind behind this question, so my answer may not accurately affect my overall score.
-
No you're obviously a blatant homophobe and just don't know it sorry.
-
I chose strongly disagree, but not out of anything against homosexual couples, rather, mostly because I feel children should have a mother AND a father, role models of both genders, something which is entirely lacking if both genders are the same sex. The thing is, I don't think that my reason is what the maker of this quiz had in mind behind this question, so my answer may not accurately affect my overall score.
That is an understandable opinion. I don't have a turnaround for it but I do have a reason I believe they should be adopted. Does anyone know how much an orphanage gets from govy funds. I would guess $25 per child per week for food. Enough for wear and tear on clothes and building. Medical. Basically bottom of the bucket in pocket money. If they had anything more it's due to our donations. So which would you rather have. A child stay in an orphanage, where they are poor and most likely out on the streets if never adopted. Or raised by two loving guys or gals with more money then what the orphanage spends on the child.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=1.38&soc=-6.00)
Every answer causing my red dot to not be having glorious freedom sex with the bottom line were ones that really had nothing to do with my feelings on policy and more on my suspicions about how the behavior of certain groups will trend, IE the one about first generation immigrants. Which I think I just hit disagree to instead of strongly disagree. Same for a lot of those types. Still, whatever.
AND NOW TO ACTUALLY SLEEP OR AT LEAST ATTEMPT V2.
-
One that particularly caught my attention was: "A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption."
I chose strongly disagree, but not out of anything against homosexual couples, rather, mostly because I feel children should have a mother AND a father, role models of both genders, something which is entirely lacking if both genders are the same sex. The thing is, I don't think that my reason is what the maker of this quiz had in mind behind this question, so my answer may not accurately affect my overall score.
I think that might be one of the things the author had in mind, but the main idea was probably to gauge one's homophobia level. Thing is, a lot of people say they aren't homophobic but reveal their homophobia when they find themselves uneasy with the idea of gay people being around children, in much the same way that many people claim not to be racist but won't allow their daughter to marry outside of their race.
And I think the response to your specific criticism of gay adoption is that it implies the alternative will always be the child going to a straight couple in a loving stable relationship. That isn't the case, and the alternative to a child getting adopted by a gay couple may be the child spending the rest of its life in care and suffering from far more problems than just not having parent figures from both sexes. Also, whilst this may be a generalisation, a lot of gay couples have a lot of money; a higher proportion than straight couples. I'm sure that I'll get shouted at for this, but I'm almost certain that its true. Financial stability can be very important, and is especially important to a child's education.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.88&soc=0.21)
Heh. I'm pretty close to furzball's, but a little more authoritarian.
Yep. I'm more socialist than capitalist, but I wasn't aware that I was so politically neutral.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.62&soc=-2.97)
that is surprising.
-
One that particularly caught my attention was: "A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption."
I chose strongly disagree, but not out of anything against homosexual couples, rather, mostly because I feel children should have a mother AND a father, role models of both genders, something which is entirely lacking if both genders are the same sex. The thing is, I don't think that my reason is what the maker of this quiz had in mind behind this question, so my answer may not accurately affect my overall score.
I think that might be one of the things the author had in mind, but the main idea was probably to gauge one's homophobia level. Thing is, a lot of people say they aren't homophobic but reveal their homophobia when they find themselves uneasy with the idea of gay people being around children, in much the same way that many people claim not to be racist but won't allow their daughter to marry outside of their race.
And I think the response to your specific criticism of gay adoption is that it implies the alternative will always be the child going to a straight couple in a loving stable relationship. That isn't the case, and the alternative to a child getting adopted by a gay couple may be the child spending the rest of its life in care and suffering from far more problems than just not having parent figures from both sexes. Also, whilst this may be a generalisation, a lot of gay couples have a lot of money; a higher proportion than straight couples. I'm sure that I'll get shouted at for this, but I'm almost certain that its true. Financial stability can be very important, and is especially important to a child's education.
Just sharing. (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index.html)
-
As you might be able to infer from the OP, we differ greatly on the respective merits of Marxism and the current "hegemony".
The rub is the difference between 'Marxism' and 'marxism'. I don't really think the ideology he offers as replacement is either well fleshed out, or likely to avoid the same difficulties as any other. In that sense, I am a 'marxist' as opposed to a 'Marxist' - mine belongs to the same family of theoretical thought, but I don't have any affinity to the Manifesto.
In fact, I would even go as far as to say that all ages of (Western, at least) culture have been marked by the same problems as those (I) identify in the earlier post. Medieval typology? Look at the Catholics and proto-Protestant Lollards hijacking typology for completely different purposes. Renaissance obsessions with the body? Where do you think all those worries about self-contradictory bodily 'signs' and 'marks' come from?
I suppose the gist is that:
* every age has its own particular ideology - a system of categorizing, labelling and thinking about humans in a social context
* these Ideologies inevitably have some dissonance with practical reality, or can be re-read in two or more radically different ways
* therefore, most of that culture's 'political clashes' - not only in the formal sense, but the points of tension that precipitate works of culture - are just the zeitgeist's self-division made manifest.
Of course, coming from 'cultural studies' (English), I would think that - naturally, I view every element of a particular culture through the lens of its literature.
At the moment, I'm going through a phase in my philosophical thought where I am obsessed with practicality and things actually working in practice, so my defences of our current system, a certain level of liberal democracy mixed with a certain level of economic freedom, is that it has generally been far more successful than anything else, and certainly more successful than any of the attempts at Marxism that have been made.
The matter is one of 'pragmatism' vs 'Ethics' in the broadest sense (Ethics as branch of philosophy dealing with prescriptive descriptions of social life). In terms of practicality, free market economics offers great efficiency and vigor, because it makes the grassroots of a society its engine. This gives it a natural ability to coordinate a massive amount of labour without centralization, which is possibly the reason it has spread so effectively.
As for the other part of the Tripos question - the Romans - that's far easier. Those guys were just drunk.
-
Maybe Im so evil because Im scientific.
I answered strongly agree to being able to abort. Why?
Lets see. If your a 16 y/o slut that sleeps with everyone and gets preggo, thats your fault, you shouldnt be able to abort.
If your a Well to do lady that has not been into a seedy or wrong situation in her life, and then are raped by someone and get pregnant. You should be able to abort.Or are you saying you shouldnt and have to stare at a product of your torture and rape everyday?
Also I STRONGLY, STRONGLY,STRONGLY believe that anyone with a high chance of passing off genetic abnormalities or diseases SHOULD NOT! be able to mate(without scientific repair of the broken genes)
I feel bad that my child will get bad eyesight and acne, no way would I have a child that may be likely to have down syndrome, or be a dwarf, etc.
To me thats being humanist, I want the entire race to one day become what it can be...and with all the people breeding genetic abnormalities it seems like in 200 years it will be rare to see a healthy person with no major genetic problems.
I mean suppose polio was passed on by birth instead of being a disease. If they didnt get rid of it, wed all have it now. they would have HAD to stop the populace from contiuing to breed that into our species.
-
that's interesting jeff. makes me wonder, especially since science has evolved to the point where natural selection hardly does anything.
-
I know, don't get me wrong, I may make some people hate me with my views, but you put it way better than I did. Natural selection is there so only the healthy and able survive. I mean no one wants to hurt anyone unhealthy and unable though. It makes you want to protect them more.Its sort of a catch 22. I just really think that the emergence of some of these horribly crazy mutations in people is a disturbing trend.
Have you ever seen those medical documentaries on the medical channel, I remember one where a boys teeth turned into tumors the size of watermelons. They had to carve him a new face out of tumors....
Just look for wierd but CREDIBLE(I.E. a published documentary) mutation videos. The things you see are forever disturbing....I just dont see a reason to chance passing something that horrible on to someone....
-
Ok jeff, consider this. Suppose I am the most rabidly opposed person to absolutely any drug use (I'm not), and that I had no principle problem with restrictions of freedom whatsoever (I do). But, even though this would make me an unlikely candidate, let's assume rabid drug hater me understands prohibition economics as well as real life me does. In this case, as far as my thoughts on what policy can exist would go, I would still have to be in favour of the legalization of everything sans cocaine, meth, and heroin, because this would bring us to a policy that would severely reduce the use of hard drugs (likely without increasing total drug use either, based on historical figures), and would be the single change in policy we could make that would most greatly reduce violent crime rates (based on historical statistical analysis this should theoretically reduce murder rates to less than half what they are now).
I'm not trying to straw man your viewpoints into a prohibitionists argument (though if you aren't in favour of drug policy reform, ah, as I believe the children say, pwned), that was just the way I found it easiest to essentially say that behavior doesn't always reflect policy, even in theory, and that any government action is bound to have consequences outside of what the action directly applies to.
PS: I was about legalization of all drugs for a long time, then noticed that countries following the model hypothetical rabid drug hater me proposed really did have next to no illegal drug use, and more importantly too little to sustain significant organized crime, and would now personally go in favour of that model. So ok, 99% social freedom, gEEZE.
PPS: I have a very strong desire to do DMT.
-
I did this before and ended up dead centre of Authoritarian Left.
I am mostly to the far right of politics :)
-
Maybe Im so evil because Im scientific.
I'm exactly the same as you. I have poor vision and am likely to go bald in the future, and I'm not happy about it :(
But that's hardly anything. Some people are genetically predisposed to CHD and cancers, and some people are born with HIV, disabilities, or even perfectly avoidable things like fetal alcohol syndrome.
Because humans have basically transcended the food web, we have no real predators, and can rely on pretty much anything for a food source. If we worked like other animals, we'd have a mortality rate high enough not only to control our population, but also to prevent the disadvantaged from surviving, so that only the fittest reproduce (sounds lovely, doesn't it?). Very few people with any disabilities, diseases, or impairments of the senses would survive in nature.
I could dive into all the scientific advantages and limitations of that little theory over reality, but I wouldn't like to bore anyone to death :)
-
I will say to OutFoxxed, who I admittedly only read one sentence of one post from, that I can criticize the ideal behind communism very reasonably and very concisely: I hate slavery, and I especially hate it when every single citizen is a slave to a small number of people, something that is absolutely necessary for communism. If human nature were such that it weren't necessary, communism would be redundant anyway because people would already be behaving the way communism hopes to get them to behave in an anarchistic society.
idea behind communism. in actual practice communism is disgusting. but the idea behind communism where everyone is equal and shares is not a bad one. just that communism is responsible for mass murder and many other things. per
-
I will say to OutFoxxed, who I admittedly only read one sentence of one post from, that I can criticize the ideal behind communism very reasonably and very concisely: I hate slavery, and I especially hate it when every single citizen is a slave to a small number of people, something that is absolutely necessary for communism. If human nature were such that it weren't necessary, communism would be redundant anyway because people would already be behaving the way communism hopes to get them to behave in an anarchistic society.
idea behind communism. in actual practice communism is disgusting. but the idea behind communism where everyone is equal and shares is not a bad one. just that communism is responsible for mass murder and many other things. per
thumbs up for being rational about the c-word.
-
I will say to OutFoxxed, who I admittedly only read one sentence of one post from, that I can criticize the ideal behind communism very reasonably and very concisely: I hate slavery, and I especially hate it when every single citizen is a slave to a small number of people, something that is absolutely necessary for communism. If human nature were such that it weren't necessary, communism would be redundant anyway because people would already be behaving the way communism hopes to get them to behave in an anarchistic society.
idea behind communism. in actual practice communism is disgusting. but the idea behind communism where everyone is equal and shares is not a bad one. just that communism is responsible for mass murder and many other things. per
Nono even a communistic (I do not think that is a word but ok Opera if your spell checker does not object) society that worked perfectly would still pretty much require an absolute slave state unless we're talking about a society that didn't actually have imposed communism but instead just had everyone choosing to share perfectly and that is not a political ideology or a social ideology that is just speculation about a hypothetical species that is obviously not human and also if it were human would probably be less efficient than real life capitalism anyway because of the lack of competition.
I guess you could say if nobody minded that would not be ideologically horrible anyway? But again, that just means we're not talking about humans or anything that could ever exist without going extinct before it reached a certain stage of civilization. Or if you're just saying the motivating force behind being pro-communism isn't disgusting then sure, the motivation for everything ever looks like a positive thing to the person doing it.
I am not sure if anyone living is capable of reading the last sentence I wrote but hopefully it is not quite that incomprehensible.
-
Actually, the idea behind communism is a bad one.
It's naive about human nature in a very childish way (which is one of the reasons why people become more right wing as they get older), and it's also incredibly arrogant. Why arrogant? Because Marx seems to have assumed that, not only had he understood the course of history to the extent where he could predict the future, but also that a working political system can be derived a priori. Oh for fuck's sake! I can't even begin to explain how ridiculous that is. Humans and society are far too complex for anyone to be able to look at a few factory workers and then figure out a way to fix society whilst sitting in one's armchair. It's not at all surprising that when the ideals of communism are put into practice they always go horribly wrong and create states so far from the actual ideal that commies can get away with saying that they weren't following the ideals at all. It should really be obvious that any grand, over-ambitious theory of everything that is derived a priori is going to fail badly.
Conservatism is often called an anti-ideology, but I think that some forms of liberalism are as well. Both are very "empiricist" kinds of philosophy and justify their beliefs by claiming that their systems, whilst not perfect, have shown themselves to be generally less shitty than other systems when put into practice. That's why I brought up Churchill's quote about democracy; democracy is crap, but the alternatives that have been tried have all been worse. Things like communism and socialism have a very "rationalist" feel about them, which may explain why they have been more popular on the continent than in the Anglo-Saxon world
Interestingly, the way that people nowadays talk about socialism vs the free market reminds me of the way ancient Greeks talked about democracy and the other forms of government (namely, dictatorship and oligarchy). A lot of the more intellectual Greeks were easily able to point out the flaws in democracy and thought it was an awful idea that must obviously lead to poor government. It stands to reason, doesn't it? And yet time has shown that democracy has worked better than oligarchy and dictatorship. I have a feeling that people in 1,000 years time will be looking at today's communists the same way that we look at Greeks like Socrates who thought (if Plato is to be believed) that democracy was obviously doomed to failure.
-
I have a feeling that people in 1,000 years time will be looking at today's communists the same way that we look at Greeks like Socrates who thought (if Plato is to be believed) that democracy was obviously doomed to failure.
No. They'll look at our obsession with kernels of selfhood as we look at the late medievals' obsessions with typology. Re-read my first post.
Also, you really should treat the Greek matter with a lot more subtlety. Analogies are troublesome enough when synchronious.
I'm also very suspicious of the suggestion that any means of carrying out social life doesn't implicitly contain some prescriptive description of it. Anarcho-capitalism works well with a theory of individual economic units you know full well didn't exist before the eighteenth century.
-
I have a feeling that people in 1,000 years time will be looking at today's communists the same way that we look at Greeks like Socrates who thought (if Plato is to be believed) that democracy was obviously doomed to failure.
No. They'll look at our obsession with kernels of selfhood as we look at the late medievals' obsessions with typology.
Pfft! If they do, then I owe you a coke ;D
Also, you really should treat the Greek matter with a lot more subtlety. Analogies are troublesome enough when synchronious.
I'll treat it with the amount of subtlety that Marxists use when analysing human society and the complex relationships between the individuals who make up said society. ;)
-
Actually, the idea behind communism is a bad one.
It's naive about human nature in a very childish way (which is one of the reasons why people become more right wing as they get older), and it's also incredibly arrogant. Why arrogant? Because Marx seems to have assumed that, not only had he understood the course of history to the extent where he could predict the future, but also that a working political system can be derived a priori. Oh for f***'s sake! I can't even begin to explain how ridiculous that is. Humans and society are far too complex for anyone to be able to look at a few factory workers and then figure out a way to fix society whilst sitting in one's armchair. It's not at all surprising that when the ideals of communism are put into practice they always go horribly wrong and create states so far from the actual ideal that commies can get away with saying that they weren't following the ideals at all. It should really be obvious that any grand, over-ambitious theory of everything that is derived a priori is going to fail badly.
first things first, try separating the idea from the execution. i'm merely saying the idea was not a bad one, not that communism is good or turned out alright.
i don't think society is that complicated. everyone in the world wants one thing: happiness/satisfaction. that is what everything, our actions, our lives, our governments, iare structured to accomplish, and every action is in the pursuit of happiness or will bring the most happiness/satisfaction or is a gamble at happiness. Even suicide, where one willing harms themself is based on the belief that by ending the pain you are at the happiest position you can be in. Understanding that, by creating a world of equal opportunity where noone is better than someone else, and everyone was truly truly equal (in theory), then everyone in theory should have access to the same amount of happiness. There isn't the corporate moguls in their ivory towers and the dirty bums found in the subways. Of course Marxism is good on paper. I don't know how you can say Marxism is about slavery, it is actually about the proletariat SEIZING control. Communism is a version of marxism, that I am willing to bet, is not what Karl Marx or anyone would have imagined. The ideas behind it, were pretty much this 1) Everyone has equal opportunity and access to material things 2) Equality between social classes. By being as equal as possible, you are giving everyone the same chance to equality. Though, as long as there are differences between people, there can never, ever, be equality. Marxist philosophies when put to practice have been tainted by corruption, brutality and a general totalitarian regime. The slavery is not really part of the idea behind communism, or socialism. The idea behind communism is equality between the social classes. Slavery is just a by-product of the plan in motion. The gulags, the totalitarianism, and everything. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that socialism could work in the modern day world. too many corrupt people, and i doubt the world is ready for a socialist/totalitarian government.
Also as to Marx not having a clue about the world, and sitting in his arm chair and all that. I say look at democracy. Look at the primarily white aristocratic males who run society. I think they are equally limited in scope, not understanding poverty the way an orphan in the slums of New York or the ghettos of Louisiana. How does a rich white man understand what may be going through the youth populations mind? Or perhaps a poverty stricken girl who lost her parents? I think that is an unfair knock on socialism. Does it matter who, where and how the idea was conceived but whether it is a good one or not?
The idea behind socialism is this: equal social classes. equal wealth. the economy is the property of the people. is that so bad of an idea? when you get down to execution of socialist ideals slavery, death, evil blah blah blah, that's when the problems arise. But the idea itself is quite good. (this is to scott mctony as well. the slave state is how communism is executed not the idea behind it as was the point of my post)
also, i don't think you can judge an entire political ideology by one or two examples especially since communist russia pretty much created modern day communism and are essentially just one example of communism. if you look at vatican city, you may say a theocracy works quite well. if you look at other theocracies, you would see the Aztecs and human sacrifice or maybe variations of theocracies such as the monarchies in which the kings ruled through divine right. Yet Vatican city a peaceful nation is doing just fine.
-
OutFoxxed, I am not sure I could precisely say that you're actually making any logical fallacies, but think about it like this. If I think "I'm going to cut my legs off and collect on the insurance money!", then collecting the insurance was the "idea", but cutting my legs off is still an inherently necessary part of the real idea, and something that I have, the entire time, intended to do by design. It's not so much that myself and Kudistos are separating the idea from the execution, so much as it's you separating positive goals from the rest of the idea.
Also, while I shouldn't have to say this (as it is incredibly obvious from the context of my post, but this is the stupid internet), I am not trying to straw man communism with cutting off ones own legs for insurance money, and if you thought I was, get that out of your dumb head.
-
first things first, try separating the idea from the execution. i'm merely saying the idea was not a bad one, not that communism is good or turned out alright.
This really is hilarious. The main point I tend to make is that communism suffers when the idea gets executed. And that is the problem with with idea. Or one of the problems. Communism and all other "big ideas" fail to take into account that things don't always go to plan and fails to take into account that one can not judge a system as good or bad or know whether it will be successful or unsuccessful until it has been put into practice. The idea is wildly over-ambitious and based on a gross simplification of human society and a childish insistence that everything be perfect. Not accounting for the separation between idea and execution is a flaw in the idea
Also as to Marx not having a clue about the world, and sitting in his arm chair and all that. I say look at democracy. Look at the primarily white aristocratic males who run society. I think they are equally limited in scope, not understanding poverty the way an orphan in the slums of New York or the ghettos of Louisiana. How does a rich white man understand what may be going through the youth populations mind? Or perhaps a poverty stricken girl who lost her parents? I think that is an unfair knock on socialism. Does it matter who, where and how the idea was conceived but whether it is a good one or not?
Yes, look at democracy. It isn't perfect is it? Now look at communism. Democracy suddenly seems a lot better when the two are compared. You see, this is related to the idea of far left philosophies being unrealistic and over-ambitious. They think that we can make a perfect society with no injustice, and whenever there is any injustice created by a system they say that the system must be destroyed. But what if there is no perfect system? What if we have to compromise and go with the one that creates the least injustice?
also, i don't think you can judge an entire political ideology by one or two examples especially since communist russia pretty much created modern day communism and are essentially just one example of communism.
When was I just using one example? Look at China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Cuba and god knows how many other countries in which communism has lead to poverty and oppression and has totally failed in its goal, in most cases either being overthrown or silently dismantled. Has there ever been any communist state that has been even moderately successful? Capitalism hasn't always produced thriving, prosperous meritocratic democracies, but it has at least succeeded a few times.
I'm in a storytelling mood right now, so I'll tell you a story.
There was once a burning building full of people, and two firemen arrived to try to rescue everyone. One of the firemen was a capitalist/classical liberal/democrat/whatever philosophy I'm supposed to be defending, and the other was a socialist/communist/I don't care any more. However, it soon became apparent that rescuing everyone would be impossible.
The first fireman said:
"We can't save everyone; some people will have to die. But we can save some! Let's go in there and save as many as we can, even if it means some injustices will result!"
The second firemen said:
"No! Equality is what's most important! It's not fair that some people get to live and some people have to die. Why should some people get life whilst others lose out? Unless everyone can be saved, no-one should be saved! Everyone must die!"
Then a giant tentacle monster came and raped both of them. Then it raped the charred corpses of everyone inside. The end. (if you couldn't tell, it's 3:00 where I live and I'm tired ;D)
-
Total anarchy is the best way to live. Prove me wrong.
-
Well, historically speaking, it's always worked far far better than communism, 100% of the time.
-
Really, if we want balance in this world, it would be best if there was absolutely no life at all.
-
I'll treat it with the amount of subtlety that Marxists use when analysing human society and the complex relationships between the individuals who make up said society. ;)
Firstly, be aware that Marx inherited his teleology from Hegel, who in turn nicked it from Kant. Be aware that it's only since the poststructuralists (birthed by those continental philosophers who, oddly enough, you seem to hold in contempt - no doubt thanks to the smelly Oxonian phil. dept ;) ) that we've had our modern distaste of 'Grand Narratives'. Don't assume that either Continental philosophy or postmodernism are friends of Marxism.
Also, don't forget that Marx's contemporaries on the right were just as wont to dabble with things like manifest destiny, and post-Enlightenment theories of 'Progression'. Before them, of course, Christianity offered the most common 'arching narrative'. Afterwards, it was a matter of degeneration theory. Even in the post-Darwin period, which had been shook up by ol' Charles' insistence on randomness rather than planning, groups continuously sought to fill the teleological void with 'Grand Narratives' like Fascism, that once again offered a system of meaning that granted every action some connection to the Struggle of the Race. It's only relatively recently that we've come to appreciate the limitations of 'totalization'. Separate Marxism from context.
...And Marxism from marxism. As it happens, many of today's readers of Marx regard him as clued up when analyzing the mechanics of his society (no-one beforehand had really articulated what exchange mechanisms were), but less well-equipped to offer alternatives.
It's a nice idea, yours, and it's attractive, but I haven't yet seen you integrate it with evidence. In what ways in particular did the failings of Grand Narratives precipitate the particular failings of managed economy?
As we're chastising people for dealing with abstractions, let's return to concretes. Do you, for instance, believe that there should be such things as jobseekers' allowance? And can we really justify inaction - inaction in real, concrete, dangerous and vitally important matters - on the basis of the occasional flaws of reason and foresight?
-
There was once a burning building full of people, and two firemen arrived to try to rescue everyone. One of the firemen was a capitalist/classical liberal/democrat/whatever philosophy I'm supposed to be defending, and the other was a socialist/communist/I don't care any more. However, it soon became apparent that rescuing everyone would be impossible.
The first fireman said:
"We can't save everyone; some people will have to die. But we can save some! Let's go in there and save as many as we can, even if it means some injustices will result!"
The second firemen said:
"No! Equality is what's most important! It's not fair that some people get to live and some people have to die. Why should some people get life whilst others lose out? Unless everyone can be saved, no-one should be saved! Everyone must die!"
...Insert similar stupid story about Conservative only saving precious possessions, or only those who can afford on the basis this promotes action and prevents idleness. It's clear this isn't going to go anywhere. If you understand my post, fine. If not, I don't think you're going to 'get' it. I don't particularly want to fall out, so I'm just going to leave things at that.
-
Firstly, be aware that Marx inherited his teleology from Hegel, who in turn nicked it from Kant. Be aware that it's only since the poststructuralists ...that we've had our modern distaste of 'Grand Narratives'. Don't assume that either Continental philosophy or postmodernism are friends of Marxism.
Not all of them, of course. But the reason why continental philosophy is more of a friend to Marx than the Anglo-American kind is that the former has far more rationalists amongst its ranks and therefore far more people with very ambitious opinions about what can be known a priori.
(birthed by those continental philosophers who, oddly enough, you seem to hold in contempt - no doubt thanks to the smelly Oxonian phil. dept ;) )
It's true; nearly all of the philosophers on our syllabi are Anglo-American analytical types ;D
Also, when I went to an Oxford open day, one of the tutors I spoke to (Robin Lane Fox, IIRC) warned us against studying philosophy at Cambridge. Apparently, Cambridge teaches students to defend a belief or particular philosopher to the death rather than look at the strengths and weaknesses of every argument. No, really, that's what he said. :D
Also, don't forget that Marx's contemporaries on the right were just as wont to dabble with things like manifest destiny, and post-Enlightenment theories of 'Progression'. Before them, of course, Christianity offered the most common 'arching narrative'. Afterwards, it was a matter of degeneration theory. Even in the post-Darwin period, which had been shook up by ol' Charles' insistence on randomness rather than planning, groups continuously sought to fill the teleological void with 'Grand Narratives' like Fascism, that once again offered a system of meaning that granted every action some connection to the Struggle of the Race.
That's a tu quoque. Or rather, ill quoque. Marxism doesn't score any points or evade any criticism because other people have made the same mistakes
As it happens, many of today's readers of Marx regard him as clued up when analyzing the mechanics of his society (no-one beforehand had really articulated what exchange mechanisms were), but less well-equipped to offer alternatives.
So, if we agree then why are we arguing? ;D
It's a nice idea, yours, and it's attractive, but I haven't yet seen you integrate it with evidence. In what ways in particular did the failings of Grand Narratives precipitate the particular failings of managed economy?
The failings of Grand Narratives are actually the ways of thinking that are correlated with them. It's hard to say whether these ways of thinking are what lead people to think in terms of Grand Narratives or vice versa; they certainly reinforce each other. The most important, I think, is overestimating the importance of certain things. A grand narrative based around the idea of a workers struggle or inequality or unfairness will see these as the only things that matter. This tendency leads, of course, to steamrollering over other things that matter because they're getting in the way of the great project and overly goal-orientated ways of thinking that see the end as being justified by any means. What has this led to when people have tried to put their ideas into practice? This way of thinking, I'm sure, is what led to communist governments around the world killing millions of aristocrats/intellectuals/whoever they considered to be the enemies of the "people". It's also what has led communist governments to be oppressive. Since the great project is more important than freedom, freedom has to be stopped whenever it gets in the way.
As we're chastising people for dealing with abstractions, let's return to concretes. Do you, for instance, believe that there should be such things as jobseekers' allowance? And can we really justify inaction - inaction in real, concrete, dangerous and vitally important matters - on the basis of the occasional flaws of reason and foresight?
Of course I support jobseekers' allowance. Without it, people would starve and they would start stealing from those who have earned their money! :D
I doubt that there are many people on the economic right who are completely opposed to all forms of welfare. The problem is that jobseekers' allowance often turns into "can't be bothered" allowance. However much you may want to deny it, there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy living off welfare; as a Northerner, I can confirm that guests on Jeremy Kyle show are representative of a larger proportion of the British population than most people would like to believe.
...Insert similar stupid story about Conservative only saving precious possessions, or only those who can afford on the basis this promotes action and prevents idleness.
Hey, at least they're saving something!
It's clear this isn't going to go anywhere. If you understand my post, fine. If not, I don't think you're going to 'get' it. I don't particularly want to fall out, so I'm just going to leave things at that.
I'm not going to "get" it because there's nothing to "get". All the far left does is point out a few problems that we all know exist (apparently under the belief that we, like they, think our political philosophy is perfect and will lead to a utopian society of justice and fairness), exaggerate those problems whilst ignoring the positives, then throw the baby out with the bathwater and propose a system that they think is without the flaws they have identified in the current one, not caring that for every problem they have solved they have created another ten.
You can accuse me of not being able to understand you or whatever (implying that not appreciating Marxism or marxism or marxianism means that it is I, not the idea, that is flawed), but I'll keep on saying that it's hideously flawed until it has been shown capable of actually producing a society anywhere near as close to its ideal as the ones that our current "corrupt" way of thinking has produced.
Hmmm, didn't Marx say that good philosophies are the ones that actually change the world rather than the ones that just produce nice ideas?
-
Also, when I went to an Oxford open day, one of the tutors I spoke to (Robin Lane Fox, IIRC) warned us against studying philosophy at Cambridge. Apparently, Cambridge teaches students to defend a belief or particular philosopher to the death rather than look at the strengths and weaknesses of every argument. No, really, that's what he said. :D
NO U
Of course I support jobseekers' allowance. Without it, people would starve and they would start stealing from those who have earned their money! :D
I doubt that there are many people on the economic right who are completely opposed to all forms of welfare. The problem is that jobseekers' allowance often turns into "can't be bothered" allowance.
Too bad with my 2:1 (near-first) I couldn't get a job for nine months. And even now, it's just a crap admin role. The situation just isn't as simple as you suggest.
I'm not going to "get" it because there's nothing to "get". All the far left does...
I didn't say I was a Marxist. Just that my thoughts on 'symbolic order' have more akin to 'marxist' thought than any other branch of ideas.
is point out a few problems that we all know exist (apparently under the belief that we, like they, think our political philosophy is perfect and will lead to a utopian society of justice and fairness), exaggerate those problems whilst ignoring the positives, then throw the baby out with the bathwater and propose a system that they think is without the flaws they have identified in the current one, not caring that for every problem they have solved they have created another ten.
Where have I done that? I've already suggested that whatever the 'symbolic order', it'll have irresolvable flaws. I then went on to suggest that these flaws are what yield the 'issues' of any age - and that Marxist replacements would have exactly the same problems. The difference is one of 'Ethics' vs 'government'. What sort of government am I keen on? Probably one reluctant to use state machinery, and that tried to 'harness' the private sector where possible. Not unlike what we've had for fifteen years, and will (probably) keep on having for another ten or twenty.
Also, don't forget that it's some British conservatives who talk about the 'art of the possible'. The idea that the Right is made up exclusively of rugged pragmatists is just plain silly. You're forgetting about the 'Paternalists', for a start.
Hmmm, didn't Marx say that good philosophies are the ones that actually change the world rather than the ones that just produce nice ideas?
Pretty combative. I really don't want to fall out with you - you're a good member, and you make good contributions. And my ForumSense suggests that threads like these inevitably produce more heat than light.
-
first things first, try separating the idea from the execution. i'm merely saying the idea was not a bad one, not that communism is good or turned out alright.
This really is hilarious. The main point I tend to make is that communism suffers when the idea gets executed. And that is the problem with with idea. Or one of the problems. Communism and all other "big ideas" fail to take into account that things don't always go to plan and fails to take into account that one can not judge a system as good or bad or know whether it will be successful or unsuccessful until it has been put into practice. The idea is wildly over-ambitious and based on a gross simplification of human society and a childish insistence that everything be perfect. Not accounting for the separation between idea and execution is a flaw in the idea
Well, if you read my original posts, i said the idea behind communism is a good one. and on the contrary, i can claim a childish ignorance and stubbornness (insistent belief that communism is bad; negative connotation; propaganda?) because without actually experiencing the political system you know just as little. Also your knock on Marx is that he has a grand scheme for the world that he assumes automatically works because he thinks he is some sort of genius. But unless you know an equal amount or more, can you say that Marxism is a bad idea. Sure he might not know everything, but you would have to have a sufficient amount of understanding to claim a political system doesn't work just as much as he would need the understanding to claim a political system does work. Russian Communism is a tainted form of Marxism. I'm pretty sure the point of socialism was that everyone owned everything, not the government owning everything.
And no it's not. Execution and Idea are two different concepts. My idea might be to build a house. Red brick 5 bedroom and 3 bath. Now if some idiot were to copy my plans (Lenin) and build his own house, but instead build marble 5 bed 3 bath, my idea is still the same idea (red brick 5 bed 3 bath), Lenin just didn't do it the way it was planned. Now if I was to follow through with my idea (hypothetically), I can still build my original red brick house. As planned. Good ideas can have bad execution and still be good ideas. You are trying to use a technicality or something.
My point --> Socialism was badly executed the FIRST time. and each and every other version of socialism is based off Russian communism. They are just different faces of the same monster. In an isolated country, country X, socialism could hypothetically be executed quite well.
Also as to Marx not having a clue about the world, and sitting in his arm chair and all that. I say look at democracy. Look at the primarily white aristocratic males who run society. I think they are equally limited in scope, not understanding poverty the way an orphan in the slums of New York or the ghettos of Louisiana. How does a rich white man understand what may be going through the youth populations mind? Or perhaps a poverty stricken girl who lost her parents? I think that is an unfair knock on socialism. Does it matter who, where and how the idea was conceived but whether it is a good one or not?
Yes, look at democracy. It isn't perfect is it? Now look at communism. Democracy suddenly seems a lot better when the two are compared. You see, this is related to the idea of far left philosophies being unrealistic and over-ambitious. They think that we can make a perfect society with no injustice, and whenever there is any injustice created by a system they say that the system must be destroyed. But what if there is no perfect system? What if we have to compromise and go with the one that creates the least injustice?
I don't really know how many times i'd have to say this, but idea =/= execution. socialism looks bad because the only version of socialism you've seen are incarnations of Russian communism. I already agree that communism is bad. You're trying to compare 1 example that turned out badly, to Euro-American democracies. Imagine if the only version of democracy you had was that of Zimbabwe. Hyperinflation, viciousness, terrorism, violence, corruption, AIDS, refugees. You name it, they have it. You are limited in view to what you've seen. Communism is the Zimbabwe of Socialism. It wasn't meant to turn out like that. You are automatically assuming every version of Socialism is bad because you've seen a couple. It doesn't work like that. My ex had purple highlights in her blonde hair. If I were to look at her, could I assume that everyone had purple hair? You are myopic in your view until you've had a lot more experience than you have. Who are you to sit in your armchair and claim you know everything about history, by saying Marxism is a bad idea? Russian Communism = Bad. A fair representation of Socialism I've yet to see.
also, i don't think you can judge an entire political ideology by one or two examples especially since communist russia pretty much created modern day communism and are essentially just one example of communism.
When was I just using one example? Look at China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Cuba and god knows how many other countries in which communism has lead to poverty and oppression and has totally failed in its goal, in most cases either being overthrown or silently dismantled. Has there ever been any communist state that has been even moderately successful? Capitalism hasn't always produced thriving, prosperous meritocratic democracies, but it has at least succeeded a few times.
They're all incarnations of Russian Communism. Once the world saw Russian Communism the truth is, it influenced them and pulled them away from traditionalist Marxist philosophy. There's a reason socialism is differentiated from Communism.
I'm in a storytelling mood right now, so I'll tell you a story.
There was once a burning building full of people, and two firemen arrived to try to rescue everyone. One of the firemen was a capitalist/classical liberal/democrat/whatever philosophy I'm supposed to be defending, and the other was a socialist/communist/I don't care any more. However, it soon became apparent that rescuing everyone would be impossible.
The first fireman said:
"We can't save everyone; some people will have to die. But we can save some! Let's go in there and save as many as we can, even if it means some injustices will result!"
The second firemen said:
"No! Equality is what's most important! It's not fair that some people get to live and some people have to die. Why should some people get life whilst others lose out? Unless everyone can be saved, no-one should be saved! Everyone must die!"
Then a giant tentacle monster came and raped both of them. Then it raped the charred corpses of everyone inside. The end. (if you couldn't tell, it's 3:00 where I live and I'm tired ;D)
[/quote]
Jeez, I'll use a real-life example (especially since anyone can write pointlessly while supporting their beliefs, mein kampf anyone?). 12% of the population in the US live below the poverty line. Idk if this is the most recent statistic, or if it's even correct. But 12% of 300million people is 36million people, 6 times that of the Holocaust. 80% of Liberia is in poverty. Zimbabwe is up there as well. I'm going to say that you completely ignore those millions and millions of people dying from AIDS, or hunger while commenting that socialism is evil. Both systems have their drawbacks, but I doubt poverty or hunger would exist in a legitimate version of socialism since everyone has an equal share of everything (and not like idiot stalin where they starve everyone to death). I feel like I'm attacking democracy too much, but it's because i'm trying to take democracy of its throne of gold. It's a good idea, but doesn't mean that every idea compared to democracy is automatically bad. these are two unique systems and as you've seen with communism it also has its drawbacks. I've yet to see a fair representation, and when and if we do, we'll see how Socialism actually plays out.
Try and look past Russian Communism's failure. There is a difference between Russian Communism and its incarnations (Cuba, China, whatever) and Socialism the way Marx envisioned it. I don't believe in Communism just as much as you don't believe in it. Just keep an open-mind. It's better to look at the world and see what could be, than to see what it isn't.
EDIT: Also the ultimate irony is, Lenins Communist party gained control of Russia through a democratic process.
-
>implying Zimbabwe is a democracy
>implying Mugabe isn't a hardcore socialist (hey, I've found an example of socialism in practice that isn't Leninist, and guess what? It's shit!)
>implying that relative poverty is no different from absolute poverty
>implying those "poverty stricken" Americans aren't rich by global standards
>comparing relative poverty to the holocaust
(http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7392/trollfacehueg.png)
-
I don't really think of Zimbabwe as either socialist or communist. Often, when 'oppressed' people have risen up, their wishes are often hijacked by a 'socialist' party that claims to represent them. The racial tensions in Rwanda, for instance, were easily commandeered by a group who claimed only to be 'representing' the poorer and traditionally lower caste Tutsis (sp?). Totalitarian communism ticked the boxes of 'speaking for the underclass' whilst also providing opportunities for an 'iron hand' government.
But, Zimbabwe is still a good example of how managed economies can go badly wrong.
-
>implying Zimbabwe is a democracy
>implying Mugabe isn't a hardcore socialist (hey, I've found an example of socialism in practice that isn't Leninist, and guess what? It's sh*t!)
>implying that relative poverty is no different from absolute poverty
>implying those "poverty stricken" Americans aren't rich by global standards
>comparing relative poverty to the holocaust
(http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7392/trollfacehueg.png)
I rest my case :]
(http://i47.tinypic.com/2jfqzq.jpg)
EDIT: I never meant communism or totalitarianism. Socialism is more of an economic system than a form of government to be honest. So often people confuse Marxism with the hardcore totalitarianism that defined the 20th century. People think Socialism ---> Stalin mass murder + infringed on basic freedoms. Socialism doesn't require that. Sure we've seen communism fail but one failure and the failure of its clones does not mean an economic system automatically sucks. Though I doubt socialism will be given a chance, considering what's happened.
-
More importantly, whilst we're here, has anyone ever definitively found the origin of the trollface?
-
When did this thread get dumber than a newgrounds thread on religion?
Stop being dumb everyone, especially ScottMcTony you gad dam.
Also OutFoxxed you're starting to come off like someone who makes a concentrated effort to fail to comprehend anything someone who disagrees with you is saying.
-
More importantly, whilst we're here, has anyone ever definitively found the origin of the trollface?
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Trollface#Origins
Encyclopedia Dramatica is always right
-
When did this thread get dumber than a newgrounds thread on religion?
Stop being dumb everyone, especially ScottMcTony you gad dam.
Also OutFoxxed you're starting to come off like someone who makes a concentrated effort to fail to comprehend anything someone who disagrees with you is saying.
There's a difference between communism and socialism. There's a difference between the idea and the actual outcome. Socialism is basically a world where everyone shares everything (so i don't understand how it's evil). Try and keep an open mind and understand what I'm saying, . because the idea behind communism is marxism where people collectively own the industries. It's a good idea (unless you have a problem with sharing). And I do understand what kudistos is saying, but she's telling me flaws in the execution of communism, which is irrelevant to my point. does it matter that communism turned out to be evil? no. does it matter that it failed? no. you know why? cause there is a difference between theory (socialism) and the actual execution (communism). if you noticed i talked about marxism and socialism, even specifically using those words instead of communism. socialism is an economic system not a political system(like communism). I'm being ignorant because people were talking about something irrelevant? perhaps you don't understand that socialism does not entail slavery or mass murder. If you had said socialism is a bad idea b/c of the lower quality products due to a lack of competition, I might've agreed. but what purpose does "communism enslaves people" do when talking about socialism? socialism is an economic system where the population owns the industrial aspects of the country. so why talk about how communism is evil? saying the sky is blue has just as much relevance. you can be socialist and democratic. political system =/= economic system. socialism =/= communism.
please do your research before being an idiot......
i've even made an effort to make sure people understood i was talking about socialism and marxism. i tried not to say communism and if you read my posts they aren't talking about socialism.
difference between socialism and communism:
http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-socialism-and-communism.htm
in fact if you read the first posts in this thread, they talk about economic regulation. i was not talking about communism at all. when i said the idea behind communism, i meant socialism.
and why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
-
And I do understand what kudistos is saying, but she's telling me
>she
I've got some bad news for you
Also, what ScottMcTony said about you making a concentrated effort to fail to comprehend anything someone who disagrees with you is saying is actually true. Let's take your claim that I'm separating the idea from the execution when it comes to socialism or communism or whatever: I've explained a million times that the horrific failures in execution imply a flaw in the idea itself, as well as actually noting other problems with the idea, but you continue to claim that I haven't.
It's pretty obvious that you're either trolling or you're so dyed-in-the-wool that socialism is a religion to you, since you are failing to even recognise the criticisms we are making, let alone refute to them. I can make a post wherein I address problems with the idea of socialism and you apparently don't even see it, since you'll claim, right after I wrote the post, that I didn't say the things I said. I know I said them; I typed the post minutes beforehand, so don't tell me that I didn't say what I know I said. All of the points you are saying that we haven't addressed have actually been addressed many times, so I doubt there's any point in us trying to address them again. :|
-
And I do understand what kudistos is saying, but she's telling me
>she
I've got some bad news for you
Pssst....
(http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/8114/clipboard01h.jpg) (http://img824.imageshack.us/i/clipboard01h.jpg/)
-
I'm 798 years old as well :D
And I'm under your bed; watch out! ;D
-
At any rate, I think what's most important in this is that everyone agrees Oxford University sux compared to the GLORIOUS CANTAB MASTER RACE.
-
At any rate, I think what's most important in this is that everyone agrees Oxford University sux compared to the GLORIOUS CANTAB MASTER RACE.
The newspaper that all good leftists read seems to disagree! ;D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-league-table
-
When did this thread get dumber than a newgrounds thread on religion?
Stop being dumb everyone, especially ScottMcTony you gad dam.
Also OutFoxxed you're starting to come off like someone who makes a concentrated effort to fail to comprehend anything someone who disagrees with you is saying.
There's a difference between communism and socialism. There's a difference between the idea and the actual outcome. Socialism is basically a world where everyone shares everything
No, socialism is a world where everyone is forced to share everything, and understands that this will be the case should they create anything. What you're suggesting is a hypothetical species that would naturally behave like a Utopian socialist society even in a circumstance of anarchy. And hey, maybe such a hypothetical species would be pretty functional, I certainly don't think these things, I will call them Ogloobs, are terrible evil creatures. But that is hardly the idea behind socialism.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.00&soc=-4.41)
I see myself little bit more liberal then the results
when security trumps freedom, it's not freedom
I live in Norway the reportably best country in world to live in (Ha fair chance) our government Norwegian Labour Party, Socialist Left Party and Centre Party are so bureaucratic that the small established businesses (1-10 employees) are raped with taxes that makes small businesses not thrive
and seriously it's not the Large corporate firms like Statoil(hydro+statoil) that bring in the majority of the income it's the small businesses.
But when the risk are so high when starting your own company in norway, that it may lead to your own personal bankruptcy.
If this continues, my generation must work too their 80's.
50% of the people that work in norway are hired by the government, when our elders retire it will ruin our economy.
don't get me started on the schoolsystem, healthsystem, eldercare etc.
Norway is a play for the scenery, we are trying to be the best in every aspect but fails miserably.
our primeminister Jens(Liar Jens) Stoltenberg are so horny for a spot in the United Nations, Waves money around to other countries.. 1billion dollars to stop excessive tree logging in Malaysia,
The Norwegian Labor Party has been in the government for 50 consecutive years out of 65 years after WWII. Our roads are declining, they are worse than the poorest countries in Europe, our infrastructure are declining...
We live fairly well, have loads of money, but the money are spent so wrong, it will be a separate field in economics in Norway when our oil has run out, that takes on how bad we spent our money.....
-
And I do understand what kudistos is saying, but she's telling me
>she
I've got some bad news for you
Also, what ScottMcTony said about you making a concentrated effort to fail to comprehend anything someone who disagrees with you is saying is actually true. Let's take your claim that I'm separating the idea from the execution when it comes to socialism or communism or whatever: I've explained a million times that the horrific failures in execution imply a flaw in the idea itself, as well as actually noting other problems with the idea, but you continue to claim that I haven't.
It's pretty obvious that you're either trolling or you're so dyed-in-the-wool that socialism is a religion to you, since you are failing to even recognise the criticisms we are making, let alone refute to them. I can make a post wherein I address problems with the idea of socialism and you apparently don't even see it, since you'll claim, right after I wrote the post, that I didn't say the things I said. I know I said them; I typed the post minutes beforehand, so don't tell me that I didn't say what I know I said. All of the points you are saying that we haven't addressed have actually been addressed many times, so I doubt there's any point in us trying to address them again. :|
i've explained many times, that execution is separated from an idea. socialism is a theory, and people change it to their wishes. if i build a red house, Lenin can build a blue house based off my plans, he would execute it wrong, but the idea would remain the same. Execution =/= idea. Especially since I said it originally, and I think I know what I meant when I said the idea behind communism is a good one. I didn't mean execution. And not only that, you're making your argument on a technicality?
socialism has many shapes and forms. that can be executed differently. Lenin might make a blue house, Stalkin could build a red house, Trotsky could make his pink for all I care. They are versions of Socialism. Sure Russian Communism failed doesn't mean all Socialism will fail. Socialism can be approached in different ways. In fact there's even democratic socialism. I doubt there would be too much infringement on ones rights with democratic socialism.
i do read them (your responses). but you're attacking communism, the execution of socialism, etc etc. Socialism is an economic system. And the idea behind it is just sharing and equality. Or forced sharing as Scott McTony says.
I can also say you guys are closeminded, dyed in the wool, mindless followers of the herd, for disagreeing with me (same sh*t really).... attack the logic not the person.
When did this thread get dumber than a newgrounds thread on religion?
Stop being dumb everyone, especially ScottMcTony you gad dam.
Also OutFoxxed you're starting to come off like someone who makes a concentrated effort to fail to comprehend anything someone who disagrees with you is saying.
There's a difference between communism and socialism. There's a difference between the idea and the actual outcome. Socialism is basically a world where everyone shares everything
No, socialism is a world where everyone is forced to share everything, and understands that this will be the case should they create anything. What you're suggesting is a hypothetical species that would naturally behave like a Utopian socialist society even in a circumstance of anarchy. And hey, maybe such a hypothetical species would be pretty functional, I certainly don't think these things, I will call them Ogloobs, are terrible evil creatures. But that is hardly the idea behind socialism.
The idea behind socialism is a world where everyone is equal and shares. that's the concept behind it. While in actual practice you are forced to share, you have communism, you have lower quality products, etc etc. And honestly? Is there anything wrong with everyone having the same amount of wealth? That is the idea behind socialism. Everyone has the same amount of money. I don't know how you are going to tell me it's a bad thing, and tell me i'm being ignorant or stubborn. I just don't think any of your arguments are good enough to convince me that socialism is as evil as you guys say it is.
I guess you are entitled to your opinion. It really depends; are you willing to trade away some of your rights for equality and a better of standard of living (in theory....) or perhaps you believe that human rights are the penultimate possession one can own. The truth is, arguing for socialism and against socialism is like arguing on whether GW Bush was right for taking away our right to privacy for increased security. You can disagree, but I don't see how you can tell me I'm wrong (especially since this is an opinion). It really comes down to this, equality (perhaps not executed as well as it could be) or liberty? Two golden ideals, can you really say which is better than the other? You can say which one you prefer, but not which is better.
Also, to be honest, I would not want to be socialist. I have no problem with it, it's interesting to me, but as an aspiring doctor I would be an idiot to refuse a capitalistic society which would benefit me so much. I'm just trying to get you to understand my actual preferences. For example, I am an atheist, I think religious is stupid, but I have no reason to condemn it. I would not go for socialism either. But I have no reason to hate it (communism is another story). I like to keep an open-mind.
-
Repeating the same thing over and over again
All of the points you are saying that we haven't addressed have actually been addressed many times, so I doubt there's any point in us trying to address them again. :|
See, I was right! ;D
-
"The idea behind me killing her was that it would improve my life. Free of all the ways she inconvenienced me, I would have greater personal opportunities. I could be happier."
Clearly there is nothing wrong with the idea of killing her.
Scatt, the king of Reducto Ad Absurdum, out.
-
Repeating the same thing over and over again
All of the points you are saying that we haven't addressed have actually been addressed many times, so I doubt there's any point in us trying to address them again. :|
See, I was right! ;D
the feelings mutual. ok i'll address them right now. if you feel i've disregarded anything you said it's probably because i thought they were purely opinion based (Karl Marx too idealistic, Karl Marx claims he knows everything, general disapproval of Marx, democracy looks better than communism, your story about firefighters), inaccurate (idea = execution [thomas edison took 1000 tries to build the lightbulb, guess the lightbulb was a dumb idea then], Zimbabwe not being a democracy, Mugabe being a socialist), argument ad hominem (calling me ignorant, calling me stubborn, dyed-in-the-wool), lack of seriousness (trollface, your story), and what i felt to be lack of content (too much opinion, analogies that could work either way). if you are to convince me that socialism is a bad idea, i don't need analogies to ancient civilizations, personal attacks, stories, or your opinion on Karl Marx. Just name flaws like not being able to possess private property. The reason you are finding it hard to get your point across, is because trying to prove a whole system is a bad idea is because you have to prove it true in every single situation, every variation and incarnation of socialism that can exist. because if even one succeeds or doesn't suck then there is a form of acceptable socialism. you have to find traits that all socialist societies would have not specific ones like communism. it's even harder since we are talking about the idea of socialism and not the execution meaning that all you have to talk about is really the rights/equality/freedom aspect of it. Of human rights you mentioned relatively little. You mentioned slavery which is not necessary in socialism.
"The idea behind me killing her was that it would improve my life. Free of all the ways she inconvenienced me, I would have greater personal opportunities. I could be happier."
Clearly there is nothing wrong with the idea of killing her.
Scatt, the king of Reducto Ad Absurdum, out.
i'm sorry but sacrificing some rights for a general higher quality of life is wrong? Not absurd at all. there are many schools of thought to socialism (i'm guessing you have an image of socialism as evil slavemasters ingrained into your brain); you can't exactly say how much rights are taken away. You could have full-blown communism, or a democratic society where everyone has complete power over their fate and pulls in an equal amount of money. Like I said, a democratic socialist republic (yes i said republic), would hardly infringe on any rights. Perhaps just as much as the Patriot Act. Or anti-abortionism. Or not being allowed to commit suicide. It depends what form socialism takes. Is it Absurd? No. Imagine every single poor or homeless person without a job given an opportunity (whether they take it is another story) to suddenly start making $80k a year. Imagine those wealthy investors who contribute nothing to the world like Warren Buffet (third richest man) making the same amount. The top .01% of (1/10000) makes 23% of the total income. That means that on average they control 2,300 times more money than the average man but do they do 2,300 times the work? do they contribute 2300 times as much? Corporate mega-moguls would also make the same amount of money, say $80k a year. The poor and underprivileged would gladly accept socialism (hence why communism is dominant in poorer nations). If you know anything about maslows hierarchy of needs, people look for employment, food, shelter, safety, sex, breathing, water etc etc. before they seek the higher ideals such as freedom.
Obviously, you and me, who have our physiological needs satisfied, who have health, property, safety, shelter, food, family, friends, a significant other, who have sex, love, self-esteem, self-confidence, companionship, and most of all opportunity, who have so much more than the bottom feeders, are free to pursue higher ideals at the top of the pyramid. That's why people such as you, such as me, would not accept socialism. We're at the top or near the top, free to pursue higher thought without worrying about the rent or a saber tooth tiger. I'd say we live a sheltered life. But people at the bottom seek to pay their rent, they seek food, they seek shelter, and socialism satisfies that. Safety takes priority over ideals for 95% of humanity. In this day and age, our safety comes from the economy.
Cliffs:
Many schools of thought to socialism. Amount of rights taken away varies. Can be very limited to totalitarianism. Socialism + Democracy for example could ensure rights.
Some rights given up for safety is not absurd
maslow hierarchy of need says ideals/rights do not matter until baser needs are satisfied (namely employment, food, shelter, survival)
Poor people would gladly sacrifice some of their ideals for safety.
You and Me are well off, hence we have a different mindset. You and me, do not worry about safety/shelter/employment because we have needs satisfied. Hence you see it as a bad trade, while less fortunate people are more likely to embrace socialism (China, Vietnam, etc)
ALSO ALSO SCOTTMCTONY, i think this should interest you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
-
the feelings mutual. ok i'll address them right now. if you feel i've disregarded anything you said it's probably because i thought they were purely opinion based
All your defences of socialism have been purely opinion based. Or purely lie based. They've all been one of the two.
inaccurate (idea = execution
I've addressed the idea as well as the execution a million times. Why would you lie and say that I haven't? Do you think I'm going to forget that I did these things just because you say that I didn't? I know that I've addressed the ideas as well as the execution. I can remember doing so and I can look at the posts I made where I did it. How can you possibly take yourself seriously when you tell such blatant lies? Maybe you've read 1984* too many times and are trying to imitate your beloved IngSoc party's tricks of telling people that 2+2=5 until they believe it? It isn't going to work.
Zimbabwe not being a democracy, Mugabe being a socialist)
Zimbabwe isn't a democracy. Mugabe is a socialist. What exactly do you understand by "democracy"? Zimbabweans can't change their government because the elections are rigged. There are gangs of armed thugs going around telling people how to vote. There is no freedom of speech or press. Opposition leaders get beaten up. It isn't a democracy, and Mugabe has said many times that he endorses socialist ideals (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/mugabe-sets-out-plans-to-impose-hardline-socialism-631505.html).
lack of seriousness (trollface
How do you expect me to respond when you call Zimbabwe a democracy, rather than what it is, a non-democratic socialist state based on a different kind of socialism from the Russian variety?
How do you expect me to respond when you compare relative poverty in the US to the Holocaust? When you do that, you're saying that not being able to afford a Prada handbag is the same as being thrown into an oven and turned into a lampshade. Is that what you really believe? Those "poor" Americans are richer than most people in the world, and far richer than most people in socialist countries.
* Yes, I know. I mentioned 1984. It was bound to happen sooner or later
-
"The idea behind me killing her was that it would improve my life. Free of all the ways she inconvenienced me, I would have greater personal opportunities. I could be happier."
Clearly there is nothing wrong with the idea of killing her.
Scatt, the king of Reducto Ad Absurdum, out.
i'm sorry but sacrificing some rights for a general higher quality of life is wrong?
No I was illustrating why your constant insistence that we're not separating the idea and execution was stupid. The idea of communism absolutely demands the complete and forcible dissolvement of any remotely free market, and demands that everything be owned by the state, and everything "economic" be controlled by the state, because that's what makes it communism. This inherently includes the part where everyone is forced to work.
What you've been doing this entire time is separating the positive goals from the rest of the idea, which is arbitrary and extremely stupid, and I was illustrating that I could apply this same separation elsewhere, IE: a murder. "Never mind that my plan demanded I end her life, that's just the execution."
Not absurd at all.
Please, please, please please please please please please please, know what things mean before you respond to them. This shows that at the time of reading my post you didn't know what reducto ad absurdum meant, and that you didn't look it up before formulating a response. This really is about as intelligent as trying to dispute something someone said in Norwegian without translating or knowing Norwegian (incidentally, that was another reducto ad absurdum). And in this case, it really did have that much of an impact, because the end result was that your post wasn't really a response to any sentiment I actually expressed.
Historically, until about the last 60 years, things seem to function better the more capitalistic they are, with the exception of total anarchy functioning slightly worse. In modern times, things that have a mixed economy that's about 60-70% free market seem to function best, followed by largely capitalistic places, followed by majority socialist places, with communistic places being completely dysfunctional, and anarcho-capitalist developed nations being nonexistant.