Discussion

[Zinn]

Going back to competition. True, a great deal can be accomplished through teamwork, but never is everyone in the "team" as good as another. The lazy have a tendency to rely on the natural workers but take the credit and reap the spoils anyway and that really defeats the purpose. Now in competition the naturally gifted can take credit for their own accomplishments and it also helps to weed out the weak and unnecessary. I cannot help but think communism is out to make a person feel ashamed for being better, perhaps even the best. It's like your taking away people's motivation to succeed, I mean really whats the point if you don't do any better than anyone else? And please don't say that the motivation is to help others because that is very poor motivation. I would do nothing if thats all I had to go on.

As I brought up before, most geniuses do not create for glory, but for the sake of creation, or improving the world. Communism isn't anti-self improvement, as far as I can tell. It is anti-lording over others. Besides, it doesn't look like the weak and lazy are getting weeded out from where I am standing. Jessica Simpson, Anna Nicole Smith, and Paris Hilton seem to be doing very well for themselves.

Lastly I would like to try and move away from the negativity of my posts for a bit since I know they are very "communism would never work because of...." And such. So how about why capitalism is better (in my opinion that is, see I am working on it).

You don't seem to be adding much 'because'.

Anyway, you have to admit that capitalism to date has worked far better than any system that has had freedom integrated within it.

It doesn't have freedom integrated within it, unless you are rich. That isn't freedom.

Free market economies, such as those that Capitalism allows grow organically and openly. Communist economics need never ending attention because those people that live under those communist systems want to break away from it to such a degree that it needs to be constantly watched. Furthermore, communism is one huge monopoly and the government is Mr.Money Bags, I would feel choked if my government had that much control over me.

Organically? I would hardly call the disgusting excesses that some people manage to reach organic. Why would people want to break away so badly? I do not think the desire to be better than everyone else is so strong. If things got bad, I could see why. Besides, our government already regulates business to some extent, if you haven't noticed. Pure capitalism leads to horrible conditions for a majority of the people, like in the early Industrial Revolution.

True people need to be controlled, but it needs to be subtle and not to that degree.

Why do you think people need to be controlled? Certainly, violence and crime is simply another form of the thinning of the herd.

Also, In a capitalist system, people do not have to go to the government every time they want to open up a shop they don't have to justify it on the basis of public benefit, if a person wants to open a business they get a licensee and thats it, your allowed to negotiate yourself into the system. It actually makes it more efficient than centrally planned economies.

I agree, the inefficiency of centrally planned econonics is a major problem with socialism.

I know a lot of people argue that capitalism is better because it provides such great opportunity's, but it really does. A capitalist system is one of an economy based on negotiated compromise. The whole system requires compromise and in that way it is self-maintaining, as this compromise comes from everyone's attempts to do the same within their overlapping influence. And all in all capitalism is just easier. Not only does communism require all countries to have the same government and a close watch to be maintained on those people within that government but it is unnecessarily complicated. Capitalism does not require all to have the same government which is easier and it allows other countries the freedom to not participate (though it is wiser to) it is self-maintaining as I have said, and all it needs is the occasional war. Small price to pay for grand opportunity, simplicity, freedom, and of course the wonderful fact that you can be better than someone else and be paid for it.

There is no opportunity in the absolute capitalism you described. Why? Because, according to Adam Smith, you have to spend money to make money. So, if people do not have money, they will never be able to succeed. The class system is as rigid as any caste system, but with the illusion of fluidity as a tool of propaganda. I'm afraid I don't see how war is necissary. Why is that freedom? It is only freedom for the few people on top of the pile, creating an almost monarchy.

[Calithin]

Some of your comments are a little passive agressive there; Zinn.

Zinn said:

We are in an economic slump because of recent wars. Capitalism never has and never will solve social ills.

Yes, we are in a slump, but keep in mind that A) the system in the US is not capitalism, but a bastardized mixed economy. B) The people have most likely earned their poverty and C) is their poverty a claim over the heads of the productive?

Remember, the degree of freedom with which a country treats its industries and workers is the degree of the rise of the standard of living in that country. A free market offers incentive; incentive for innovation, for production, for creation. The incentive is possible only through property rights, which are only preserved and defended under capitalism. When you invent a new product, when you work overtime, when you raise the productivity of yourself or your company, you expect to get rewarded, you expect to be acknowledged and paid for your achievement. If property rights are protected, then you will continue to create and produce because you have an incentive: a better life for you (and your family if you have one). So using this and coming from it the raise of the living standard it should solve some of those "social ills".

Honestly with socialism what incentive do you have to produce? If all hands, even those who are incompetent, foolish, inept and perhaps even downright evil can reach into your life and productivity, by right, what incentive do you have to produce? If men are left free to create and keep the fruits of their creation, then all of society prospers.

Now, the argument is often made that, even in a totally free society, there will still be "poor." Perhaps, but you must earn your living in a free society, sustenance and welfare checks are not handed to you at expense of others in a free society (as in a welfare-statist society), you must work and earn your income.

So yes, the US does have poverty. However, the VAST majority is due to the welfare state and government regulation. Under pure unregulated capitalism this will be all but gone.

Zinn said:

You can hold people accountable for exploitation. Exploitation is entirely the fault of the perpetrator. That is like saying that if I trick someone into eating dog feces, it is the persons fault and not mine. Countries that are horribly in debt borrow from the World Bank as a quick fix to feed their people. Unfortunately, things almost always get worse after that. However, there is nothing that the countries can do, due to high interest rates.

First off, if you trick someone into doing that then yes, itis their fault for being so stupid and so easily tricked.

Secondly, I agree with you on one point, I am against the world bank. If your country cannot feed the people your responsible for than you should deal with it yourself. The rest of the world should not have to be bothered with problems that do not concern them.

Zinn said:

It is America, and other more powerful countries' responsibility to be responsible and to help smaller countries deal with problems like starvation and disease, because those countries do not have the natural resources and economy to take care of their own people.

Why? Why is it the responsibility of the stronger more powerful countries to waste their time and help the weaker? Why should they bother? Why should they contribute to that weakness by providing a safety net for those nations to fall on? The weak are weak for a reason and if they cannot break away from that weakness then they should be left to deal with it. And do not say it' the stronger's responsibility to help because they contributed to the exploitation that made those country's weak because you know what I will say. It's there own fault for allowing themselves to be exploited.

Zinn said:

Besides, not everyone gets to pick their leader. In fact, most of those tiny countries that the World Bank exploits are harsh military dictatorships. Being in a position of power entails responsibility.

This is the only place I think other countries should step in to help. If there is a military dictatorship then yes, help from perhaps America is all right. But only because it's dangerous for the US to let a military dictatorship go on (dangerous safety wise), if not for this then that would also be the country's problem.

Zinn said:

What threat? Russia never attacked anyone. They did funnel funds to communist revolutionaries in other countries, but the Americans did the same.

I think you misunderstood. Not the kind of threat that will attack and kill you. The kind of threat that comes to your nation, takes your money, and changes your life from a capitalist free for all into a conformist socialist hell.

Zinn said:

The Soviet Union did quite well in World War II. They gained half of Europe, and became a world power.

They could have done better.

Zinn said:

Organically? I would hardly call the disgusting excesses that some people manage to reach organic.

Production of goods and services creates spillover effects that benefit more than the person who is producing. As a result, production is an activity that creates the greatest net-benefit for society. Also, remember the producing something requires thought, and thought is an individualistic process and cannot operate under slavery. As a result, if you wish to create a society where all people are better off then you should want MORE Capitalism, because the natural individualism of human survival and creation is free to thrive under Capitalism, creating more positive spillover effects (such as employment). So in reality this "horrible excess" of which you speak benefits everyone to some degree or another.

Zinn said:

I do not think the desire to be better than everyone else is so strong.

Well, if you don't want to give people that much credit even than fine. How about then the desire for money, material possessions and comfortable survival for your family (again, if you have one).

Zinn said:

Besides, our government already regulates business to some extent, if you haven't noticed. Pure capitalism leads to horrible conditions for a majority of the people, like in the early Industrial Revolution.

As my previous statements show I have noticed what the government does to the idea of capitalism. And I disagree, I think pure capitalism is exactly what we need. The events of history do not always paint and exact picture of what something can and cannot do in the future (like the argument about the Russian Revolution).

Furthermore, inequality of income is merely a difference. People are different and will have different skills and abilities in demand to different degrees. Difference is inequality and hating inequality is the same as hating difference.

Everyone does win under Capitalism, merely to different degrees.

[Void]

Pure Capitalism, like any "pure" system, be it Communist, Fundamentalist, Monarchial, what have you, is doomed to fail. There are many good Capitalist ideas that can be applied to a form of government that will not prohibit those of lesser wealth from making their way in the world. It's all about balance.

For example, right now our legal system is biased towards the rich. Requiring certain lawyers to take on "Pro-Bono" cases does not work because, as evidenced by one man who's lawyer slept through the case, it doesn't really work. This is an example of where Capitalism is BAD, and thus, a different system should be implimented. Since the legal system is about justice, this is one of the intitutions that SHOULD be socialized under our system, so that the rich aren't winning cases they shouldn't due to the fact that they can afford better lawyers.

However, just because Capitalism can have bad effects, doesn't mean it is all bad, just like how while Communism can do much good, it isn't ALL good. No system is perfect, its the amalagation fo the systems that provide for the best results.

Certain Capitalist ideals, like free trade, I feel are quite important. I also believe that the wealthy do have the right to their money, at some point in their lives the money was earned, and once the money is earned, they are free to do with it as they will. I am aware that certain families probably made their fortuntes through less than legitimate ways, but unless we can prove it, I do not believe they should have their money taken from them.

That being said, I do think the standards that the government requires businesses to adhere to should be stricter in some areas and looser in others. We have many restrictions on companies, some good, some not, but the core of what the government should be doing is setting fair wages and ensuring equal treatment and safety standards. This being said, a balance must be maintained here to ensure that small business owners are not driven out of business because they cannot afford to meet government standards.

Anyways, sorry my contributions are a bit off, I've been busy of late. I'll try to make it more coherent later.

[Zinn]

Blah, responding to the quotes takes way too long, and my posts always end up exceeding the character limit, so I have to double post. I am just going to respond with numbers.

1) That bastardized version is acually much better. The workers wouldn't get any recognition for their inventions if we didn't have the bastardization in place. In fact, there isn't nearly enough bastardization. Right now, it is perfectly legal for companies to steal their employees creations, take all of the credit, and get most of the money. The recording industry would be a prime example of this. EA Games would be another example. Without the bastardized mixed system, corporations steal from their employees and take credit for their creations. I would hardly call that a fair economy in which personal achievement is recognized. How do people deserve to be poor? As I've mentioned before, I work with an interfaith organization that houses and feeds homeless families, and helps them get back on their feet. After eating dinner and talking with so many families, you want to know what I've discovered? Most of these people are perfectly nice people who just got sick and couldn't get back to work because of unfair employment policy towards prolonged illness or were laid off when their factory moved to a third world country and couldn't find work fast enough to keep up the rent on their homes. No one I have talked to yet is lazy or sounds like they deserve it. In fact, they spend from 7 AM to 5 PM when they are in the program trying to find a job, and usually do within a few months. The other major problem is that many of the people in the program actually have jobs, but aren't able to live off of them, because of insufficient pay. They don't have enough money to afford college, so they can't get more educated in order to get better jobs. We've had the same economic system for at least a hundred years, and we had a boom just a few years ago. It isn't the system that's causing the problem, it's the government. War either causes a slump or a boom, depending on the success level We're losing the war in Iraq. Tax cuts to the rich do not increase spending. Trickle down economics is a pretty accurate name for cutting taxes to the rich, because it really does sound like pissing on people. The benefits don't trickle down. It didn't work for Ragan, so why would it work for Bush? I am not a socialist, nor am I arguing for socialism. I am arguing for increased government regulation and a reformed welfare system. Programs like the one that I volunteer for shouldn't have to exist. The government should take care of things like that.

If I wanted to stimulate the American economy, I would do the following things.
a) Temporary high tariffs for offshore factories. That way, companies will be forced to move their factories back to the US, creating more jobs. Also, this will help human rights because of the employee protection laws we have here that don't exist in the third world.

b) Pay caps at 800,000 dollars a year. Anything more than that will be taxed. Bill Gates alone could pay for new text books for every school in America. This does not prevent people from being richer than others.

c) Privatized social security is a bad idea.

d) Bonuses and government incentives for green companies, and for companies that solve a government checklist, such as cures for cancer, hydrogen powered cars, etc. Higher taxes and fines for companies that harm the environment. That way, companies will be economically motivated to solve problems and to invent things for the good of humanity, because it will also help themselves.

e) Socialized law so that everyone really does have equal protection under the law.

5) Laws against corporations having the rights to things that their employees invent on their own time. The copyright should always belong to the creator, and should be legally protected as such.

6) Revival of anti-trusts to improve competition. Gigantic corporations are harmful to capitalism, which requires competition.

Otherwise, everyone can produce whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want.

I fail to see how welfare and government regulation cause poverty. I think they are responses to the problem. Welfare is short term and somewhat ineffective, like trying to put a bandaid over a mortal wound. It needs serious reform to work properly. Privatization is not the reform needed. Government regulation helps prevent comapnies from screwing their workers more than they already are. We need more government regulation.

2) It isn't that other places shouldn't be bothered, its that the interest rates are way too high. The rich should help the poor because its a nice thing to do. It's a matter of ethics. People should actively try to make the world a better place. People need to be personally responsible. It is also in our economic interest. If people have food, then they can spend their money to get better educated. If they are better educated, then they become more productive workers and create things that help everyone else. The pattern is there. The problem is that many countries simply do not have the resources. For example, the majority of Afganistan is moutainous wasteland. Unlike countries like Britain, they don't have the farmland to produce a surplus, which would allow for... well, you get the point. There is a lot of historical precident on this.

3) They are weak for a number of social, economic, and natural reasons, mostly dealing with climate, access to resources, population, infrastruction, level of modernization, ethnic violence, and form of government. All of the reasons but government are impossible to control, and changing the government won't fix anything unless the previous are solved first. Why should the strong help the weak? Because if they don't, the weak will remain weak, and people will continue to starve to death. In capitalism, you have to spend money to make money. The same goes for countries. They need to have capital to spend in order to gain their own wealth. I don't see helping weaker countries as a give away which will be wasted, I see it as an investment. At the very least, the country will have some good will towards the United States, and we'll have one less enemy, and one less source for terrorists. If the United States helps other countries, then other countries won't hate us so much.

4) Hey, want to hear something funny? The United States funds and supports many military dictatorships, and even helps/ helped put a few in power. The Phillipines, Haiti, Iraq, Kuwait... the list goes on. Hooray for spreading democracy.

5) What threat would that be? A communist revolution is a personal choice. For someone who claims to support personal choice in the way of government, that is rather silly. Unless you mean that choice is OK as long as that choice is the one you support, which is just as bad as any person that believes everyone should be a socialist. In fact, it is even a clause in American law that we have the right to revolution of any sort, as long as that revolution is successful. After the French and American revolutions, the nations of Europe were thrown into the same dread that America had/has of Communism. Don't fall for the propaganda about the 'Red Threat'.

6) Really? How? Czarist Russia was a mess, and Capitalist Russia right now is run by the mafia and impoverished. The zenith of the Russian economy was under Stalinism, ironically enough. And China... wow. They are going to overtake us as a power some time in the next fourty years.

[Zinn]

7) Mod: Stop being patronizing please. Also, do not put words in my mouth.

I have outlined my views on humanity before, but I will do them again.

I believe that the majority of people are:
1) Selfish
2) Stupid
3) Horny
Number three only applies if the person in question isn't a eunuch or something.

Most religions and ethical systems contradict this list. Therefore, I believe that the purpose of life is to contradict and overcome human nature.

It isn't about giving credit. I believe that people should have credit for their creations. Also, socialism, like any economic system, is based around the survival and comfort of people. It involves the same amount if selfishness as the others, but on a group level instead of a personal level. It also deals with survival, so I feel to see your point.

Of course I want my family to be comfortable. Who wouldn't? If I were poor or uneducated, the capitalist system wouldn't do anything to change that though, so I once again fail to see your point. Socialism doesn't magically make everyone poor and miserable.

I do not support socialism because I am opposed to cultural homogeny, since I feel that it supresses artistic growth, and because I do not think it would work. I don't think it would work because it contradicts human nature to an extreme degree. The closest thing in the world to a working socialist system would be the kibbutzim in Israel. They have serious problems with drugs, and people who simply don't want to work.

8) Actually, the events of history almost always do. I love history, and I study it in my spare time as well as at school. Throughout history, there are repeating patterns, and this pattern is quite clear. As you yourself have made evident, protecting people from harm that are less powerful than you is not on your priority list. It isn't on the priority list of corporations either. Pure Capitalism is a nightmare for human rights. The entire point of capitalism, as you have also already made clear, is that not everyone wins, because if everyone won, then no one would win. I want everyone to have equal opportunity, which requires government regulation. Where people go from there is their own business and ambition. The problem is that not everyone has an equal opportunity. Inequality of income isn't like being black, or being Jewish, or being of European descent. It is a social situation that can be helped. You can't just accept it as a difference. That's rediculous. being opposed to poverty isn't like being a racist, because being opposed to poverty means wanting something better for humanity as a whole. I would argue that believing that people who are poor deserve to be poor is more like racism, because it is that belief that has spawned hundreds of years of opression. Just replace 'poor' with the minority of your choice, and you have the same statement that bigots have been using for years.

[Gunnar]

This is simply a question, how dose communism and socialism keep classes from being re-established after they've been knocked down? and what about those who don't want to participate once the new goverment as been established? I mean, there are certain people who sit out in the back country or in small rural country that would just rather be left alone, what of them?

[Valodya Bassarov]

I don't have time to answer all of that right now, Gunnar, but in short here is the answer.

We believe that humans are products of their environment and that once everyone has their basic needs met and are no longer being exploited for their labor, humans will be...well, better. The changes in society would yield changes in humanity. These changes would mean that people would no longer be interested in self gain when they see the gains that the whole has made. Most people simply wouldn't be interested in going back to the "old ways" of capitalism. I am sure that there would be some, but it would be akin to those few people in our country today who support fuedalism over capitalism. They wouldn't be taken seriously by a majority of people.

As for the recluses or people who prefer not to participate in society, I am sure that they wouldn't be forced to. If they can survive on their own in their cabin in the woods and make ends meet, then good for them. No one will stop them. As long as there is no victim and there is no crime, and I can think of no victim in that situation.

In short Gunnar, a lot of what we believe depends on the belief that humans are not naturally bad, and that humans can do much more than they have in the past. We feel that humanity has been stiffled through much of history, and that if you can change society, you can change humans. This is something paramount to our beliefs.

To Zinn, I don't have time to respond to all of your comments but will pick out one that stands out to me. You mentioned that you feel socialism is negative because it hampers creativity and I disagree. Under socialism, the work week would be shorter, as workers will set their hours and their production, as well as the fact that everyone will be employed. With more time spent away from work, there would be more time for leisure and creativity. I think the present system where in most work a 40 hr work week, is draining to creativity.

To add to that, in society today, how many artists are in other jobs/fields simply because they can not make money using their creative talents. Or, how many artists do not recieve education or training because they can not afford it?
I believe that in a socialist system, where higher education is a right and not a priveledge and were wages are more equitable (meaning you can do the work you are most passionate about without worries about income or education), there will be a flourishing of creativity.

The creativity argument is in Cannon's book, "America's Road to Socialism."

I only highlighted the major points.

[Gunnar]

seems alright enough, but I know alot of people who are not happy with one job, some people i know, plan on taking a more adventurous job, the military for instance, before settling into their dream work, writing or teaching. Would the govermetn force us to work in a profession that would help the masses or would be be allowed the basic right in the pursuit of happiness?

[Valodya Bassarov]

The nature of the government would be different to government as we have seen it under capitalist or under stalinism. It would not be a dictatorship, as has happened in China, Cuba, USSR, etc.

There would be elections and the people themselves would decide the laws and who would govern them from amongst their peers. In a classless society, obviously, wealth would not be a requirement to run for office. Rather, it is hoped that people would be elected on the basis of vision or character.

With that said, the majority of people would have the same rights they have now if not more, since they would enjoy more direct control over the government, laws and policies.

The government itself is just a crutch to establish the power of the working class and to organize production. Once society is organized properly, it is thought that the government would no longer be needed and eventually wither away.

The goal of socialism is anarchy. But we differ from the anarchists in when this anarchy can come into being. They believe that revolution can take out both the classes power and political power, since both are a system of oppression. We agree that government is a tool for the oppression of one class over another, but, in order to organize production and society after the revolution, it is something that can not be avoided. Therefore we don't believe that both can be taken out with a single blow, but the latter will eventually die off when it is no longer needed...that is, when there are no class conflicts wherein one class must exerts its control over another.

I think people generally have this idea that we want some gloomy dictatorship or that we want to take people's freedom away in order for some greater good. Really, we want people to have more freedom and happiness, which is why we want to liberate them from being wage slaves in the capitalist system. We want people to govern themselves, rather than be governed by capitalists who claim to govern on our behalf, but who really represent the interests of a small and privileged slice of society.

[Gunnar]

But wont classes re-establish themselves once the goverement is gone? Someone will work harder then others, and gain more from it. That wealth will begin to grow and be passed down the generations untill you have another aristocracy again, what will prevent it? That was how it all started, so what is to stop it?

[Calithin]

Thats right Gunnar, they will. Classes are to humans what water is to fish, you don't know how you got in it, but you sure don't want to be taken out.

Now Zinn I suppose I will do the same:

1) I disagree, I think this version of government is stifling what could be. The system we have now is actually making it harder because small businesses have a more difficult time adhering to those government regulations and then your giving large companies an unfair advantage.

Now as for companies "screwing over" their workers... All we need are harsher laws and a small tax to the government to insure that those laws are enforced. Laws that protect your right to create and make a profit as your creation does. I think the only reason the government should interfere in a business matter is if someone's rights are being violated within that.

And I am against Bush's tax cuts to the rich; by the way. So I agree with you that that was pointless.

2) I agree with A. I disagree with B. I think pay caps are just another way of the government controlling some one's potential, and 800,000 a year is pathetic. I agree with C.

Now D, Under Capitalism, private property rights would save the environment. I (A) own a factory and my factory dumps waste into the river owned by (B), they would sue A for the cleanup costs. The reason our environment isn't protected is because it is owned by the government; i.e. everyone, and hence is protected by no one.

I agree with E. (you sort of took a number/letter turn here, through me off) I agree with 5, obviously. And I agree with 6.

I disagree with the statement after though, government regulation is not necessary. Laws and the enforcement of those laws are, however.

2) This is hilarious. "The rich should help the poor because it's the nice thing to do." What? Are you absolutely serious? That is the motivation your giving people? Ethics? Making the world a better place? This is backwards to almost everything people have done so far (and you like history fallow me on this). No one will help anyone else unless forced to. It's a sort of "this money is mine, why should I use it to help a complete stranger?" Why should they? It is no one's moral obligation to help anyone else, if you do great for you but the fact is most people won't. When it really means reaching deep into your pocket (not charity now and then) no one will have it. People feel entitled to their money and when you feel entitled to something then you feel no one else is entitled to it.

Also, you do not need a college degree to succeed. Andrew Carnegie and Richard Branson are fine examples of this. And further, why should colleges be forced to educate people? The suffering of the poor does not give them higher ethical worth than anyone else. Everyone is of equal ethical worth and therefore we are not sacrificial animals for each other. If it's free education for the poor (college that is) then it's free education for the wealthy, not doing so would be discrimination.

The fact is that the wealth of the rich did not create the suffering of the poor. Yes, I do concede that some areas can get screwed up in cyclical poverty (and that is why I advocate a small negative income tax to replace welfare) through no fault of many of the victims, but the results of a market economy are likely to shrink these areas substantially.

And remember, the fact that Markets are based on individuals means that they utilize the mind of each one, resulting in the only manner through which the complexity of our modern world can be dealt with. Solid structures like plans cannot deal with changes and sudden shifts of conditions. Liquid structures like markets can. The information required to run an extremely complex society is dispersed in millions of minds ... no bureaucrat can access it all. Only a fluid, emergent system based on voluntary interaction, such as Capitalist Free Markets, can handle this info.

3) "Why should the strong help the weak? Because if they don't then the weak stay weak." And... It doesn't affect the strong in any negative way if the weak stay weak so where is the motivation? Again, ethics ... funny.

4) True the US does fund some military dictatorships, but by doing that then they illuminate the chance of being attacked by those countries. You will not kill someone who gives you money. And like I said the only reason that we should step into that mess is if there is a threat and if we give them money it's just another way of steping in and eliminating that threat.

5) Fine.

6) Yes, I know "the red Mafia" is quite a problem for them over there isn't it. Too bad. Russia just can't seam to get it, first they were oppressed by the czars, then the Stalinist government and now the Mafia. Maybe certain places are just doomed to fall into bad patterns.

7) Again, I do not mean to be patronizing. And I apologize for putting words in your mouth if I did.

I agree that one of the major reasons that socialism won't work is because of human nature. Communism relies so strongly on the people that the bottom is sure to fall out sooner rather than later. You just can't put that much on people. I am semi-all for expecting more of them and not limiting their potential and all that, but you can't base a whole system on it. It's why anarchy won't work, in my opinion that would be.

8) Zinn, if I had a priority list it wouldn't even make it on there.

Anyway, government meddling is not necessary. Like I have said before laws and making sure those laws are enforced is all we need. The truth is the poor and less educated are not abused under Capitalism. They will have equal legal rights. No one may initiate force, fraud or coercion against them; legally.

[Zinn]

Thats right Gunnar, they will. Classes are to humans what water is to fish, you don't know how you got in it, but you sure don't want to be taken out.

Actually, they aren't. Classes are purely social constructs. There are classless societies in the world. Furthermore, plenty of people want to be taken out, namely the people who aren't on top. For me, the question with communism is reversion, but how we get this classless paradise in the first place. I think it is impossible. If we ever achieve something that perfect, people won't want to revert. However, I think achieving something like that is impossible. Also, everyone has to like the system, which is a problem. As soon as someone decides they don't want to be a socialist anymore, things begin to unravel. On the other hand, democratic republics are far more fluid, and still manage to provide law. It's about balance.

Sorry about the number thing. My mind was wandering.

1) How would smaller businesses have trouble adhering to regulations? It seems like smaller ones would be easier to manage. Besides, the majority of regulation that I think needs to be done would be unneccisary for small businesses, because since they are small, they do not have the resources to go offshore and exploit people. How is a tax going to stop anything? Do you mean a fine? At any rate, stricter regulation is needed to protect the rights of artists. However, that will probably never happen because it will be less profitable for the corporations that exploit them. Once again, see the music industry and EA Games.

2) It's more than my family makes. The pay caps would not restrict how much money a person could have, invest, spend, etc.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't work, because it already doesn't work. I live in New York state, near Niagara Falls. People can raresly win those cases because the larger corporations can hire better lawyers. Also, there are several bills in congress right now that would limit civil action suits like that, under the guise of 'reforming malpractice suits.' Yes, I know that malpractice only applies to medical stuff, but those bills all sneak something extraneous and pro-business in. I have to read them as part of my job. Also, large corporations could buy up large chunks of land and make them toxic wastelands. They already do that too.

Government regulation=laws. Unless 'law' means something else that I am not aware of. Every law that exists is a government regulation. It is the government regulating people.

2) This is why I support more government regulation. Because as I outlined it, people are selfish bastards. Don't take it personally. People should help each other because in the end, it creates a greater market size. If more people have money to but things, then more things will be purchased, making money for the people who sell stuff. If a majority of the world can't afford rice and vaccinations, then that's a lot of people who won't by buying sneakers or gatorade.

Of course. I support socialized government education. The problem with that is that colleges are worried that they will be watered down. I support full merit scholarships for everyone. People would have to earn it.

My late grandfather invented the exam that customs officers take in Canada. He only had a grade 9 education. However, that was about a hundred years ago. The same goes for Carnegie and Branson. Go try to find a job that pays more than 100,000 dollars a year that doesn't require anything past a high school education, and that is available to most people. It doesn't exist. If you try to get a job at a company, or try to start something, people will laugh in your face. Education is the key to a well paying job, excluding rare exceptions like rock stars, etc.

3) How would your negative income tax work? It sounds like welfare to me. Giving people money is giving people money. Also, how would you determine how much money to give? Also, how exactly would a free market economy help shrink those areas? In the past, it has only increased the riff between the rich and the poor, and made conditions for the poor worse. If someone were maimed, they would be out of work permanently do to lack of regulation, etc.



The fact is that the wealth of the rich did not create the suffering of the poor. Yes, I do concede that some areas can get screwed up in cyclical poverty (and that is why I advocate a small negative income tax to replace welfare) through no fault of many of the victims, but the results of a market economy are likely to shrink these areas substantially. The system we have now seems to be handing information just fine. I don't see your point here.

3) We need laws because people are unethical. That is why I support regulation. If there was no regulation, there would be no reason to be ethical that wasn't related to doing it because you are a nice person. Free systems require personal responsibility to do nice things, which is why they will never work. Whether that system is pure capitalism, or anarchism, things are doomed to fail.

4) None of the dicatorships we have funded in the past seem to have any problems trying to kill us now. Also, the people who lived under those dicatorships hate us even more.

5) Thank you.

6) Actually, Russia is in a hole because the United States refused to provide financial aid and to aid in setting up a proper democracy after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also, the Soviet Union plundered the environment, leaving many areas toxic.

7) Thank you.

I don't think its relying on people on the bottom that is the problem. I think the problem is relying on people at all.

8) If there is no regulation, then force, coercion, and fraud aren't illegal. Those are regulations.

To Bassarov: This may sound horribly selfish, but I think utopia is harmful to art. Art requires some sort of challenge, or problem, or suffering. When writing a story, it isn't a story unless there is a conflict.

Also, if an artist is opposed to the socialist system, what would happen to them? What if people agreed with that person, and wanted to instate something else? What then?

[Calithin]

People will always revert back to classes in large society's. Human beings are unequal it's always just a matter of time before they realize this and try to use it for their own gain. In this respect their will always be classes, certain people will always be better than other people, it is wrong to hold them back from exercising this right to be better and to profit from that superiority.

1) The regulations for businesses put forth by the government are mostly to keep large corporations in check. These regulations are terribly general and are designed for larger businesses not your small neighborhood shop.

You said "the majority of regulation that I think needs to be done would be unnecessary for small businesses" Thats exactly the point the regulations the government has today applies to all businesses and they shouldn't. The government should stop generalising.

2) As for the laws right now giving an unfair advantage to the corporations I am against that as well. I think some laws should be changed and others added to stop that. And I think if we eliminate corporate ties to the government, which as I've said before is what big business wants, to get in bed with he government for their own gain than that could solve a lot of the problems with our legal system.

As for the businesses being able to hire better lawyers well, good if they can it's their right to seek out the person who can best fulfill whatever service they need done, thus the bliss of capitalism.

The justice system should be separate from the government. The only time the government should interfere is if some one's rights are being violated.

2) I don't think free systems require a desire to do nice things. We have been arguing for a bit now, do you really think I would be in favor of a system like that?

Yes, people are naturally selfish. You can explain to a person 100 times why helping their competitor will benefit them in the long run and they won't hear it. People are skeptical when in comes to their money, it's a miracle if you get them to give it away with instant results, and now your talking about the long run? No, it could never happen. Society is all about quick fixes that they can see and benefit from right this minute not about what could happen to them given time (i.e., Bush getting reelected). Look at the fast food industry when they buy a burger their not thinking about the fat, calories and heart problems it will cause they are hungry and they want that need met as quickly as possible.

This system will not work because of the goodness in people, of which there is little. But because of the greed of people.

I am for merit scholarships as well. If people earn that education than fine.

3) You determine how much money to give based on the person's situation you hire people (which creates jobs) to investigate each person's case and to see how they are coming along with the help of the money and if in a year or so depending on the situation the person started out in they are in the same place to cut them off. Give the money to some one else, people should not lean on the government to do everything for them. Thats not that the government is for, the government was created to protect people's rights, why have we meddled so much with the system and changed that.

In a free market economy people have more freedom to go out and invent and start new businesses and such, this creates jobs, jobs lower poverty rates and increase living standards, this shrinks those areas.

3) My statement above on two was for this comment and the earlier one.

4) Well, that is because we have stopped funding them and therefore eliminated that form of protection against attack. If we don't want to give them money any more and are feeling nice then we go in and take down the dictator putting someone friendly towards us in power.

5) Your welcome.

6) Well, this is a circle but I will say it again. It's Russia's own fault for becoming communist to begin with, they wouldn't have needed help setting up a proper democracy and wouldn't have the waste problem. As I've said a lot of what's wrong with countries today is their own fault.

7) I agree.

8) I agree here too. Not just art though. If Communism succeeds (what a thought) then there are no real problems to solve any more. If there are no problems why do you want change? You do not change perfection. There would be no motivation for invention for society to advance whatsoever. We would be stuck.

[Heishin]

Just wondering, who here is a democrat?

[Calithin]

Believe it or not I am.