A question to Communists:

[greenpeace]

I have already pointed out many, many examples, out here in the real world, where people ARE disputing it. So when you say it's not easily disputable, you are flat out wrong.

That's one of the reasons most of your arguments fail. You're all about "people should define harm this way". My arguments are based on what people are doing. I can point to real-world examples to back me up. You can't.

Again, if they disagree with something as fundamental as that than they wouldn't be apart of such a society in the first place.

What a coincidence--your posts cause me to crack up too.

No, that's not it. If you have a heart attack, your family, friends, and neighbors will not just "let" you die--the problem is that none of them will know how to save you. I'll bet my next year's paycheck that nobody in your entire family knows how to do an angioplasty. It's likely none of your friends or neighbors know, either.


Why don't you go look over your local court system and police station, and you'll get a good idea of how much work it takes just to do those two things. There's a good reason we have lawyers AND police officers as separate jobs--because those two jobs are too complicated for one person to do both. And your argument fails. Just doing the stuff you described above still requires a level of specialization that Greenpeacocracy cannot handle. The common citizen cannot administrate law and police work; we need to train specialists to do both of those. Therefore administrating it with direct democracy is not possible.

And people in this society can't specialize, because why? I don't see how the government needs to administer such things, its simply a matter of people with knowledge passing it on to others.

I didn't. Capitalism is all about trade. Two parties each have something the other wants (whether goods or labor--doesn't matter). The two parties decide how to exchange the one for the other. Capitalism is a purely economic system, which does not require a Republic. In fact, Capitalism can co-exist with any government, except a few totalitarian states which have imposed artificial controls and destroyed their economies as a result (Burma, for example--see?? I've got real examples). Capitalism existed in the Soviet Union. Howzat for irony?

Trade doesn't neccessarily mean Capitalism. You have to have an authority to protect these rights, and throughout history if my tribe was better with a spear, it had no need to trade, it took, and that is not Capitalism.Its really just rule of the strong.
Also, again, how society organized itself in the past is irrelevant.

I can describe that kind of life with one word:

Hell.
I would refuse to live in that barbaric Purgatory if you stuck a gun in my face and threatened to shoot me. You go right ahead and pull the goddamn trigger.

Good for you, but I fail to see how the system would allow people to offer incentives for things (the incentive in this case would be not shooting you).

 

[BasketCase]

Again, if they disagree with something as fundamental as that than they wouldn't be apart of such a society in the first place.

Perhaps you haven't been reading the news enough, GP. If they disagree with your definition of harm, then in their view your system is harmful. For such people, it's not enough to merely "not be a part of it". Their ethics require them to DESTROY your system. To them, it is unethical and harmful for your system to exist. Anywhere.

Democracy doesn't have this problem. The concept of allowing the people to vote for the system they want is considered acceptable (and non-harmful) by all democracies. That's part of why democratic states hardly ever go to war against each other.

Capitalism, to some degree, does have a problem. The rules of capitalism are well-understood, but there are a few people out there (such as yourself) who consider it harmful and are trying to destroy it. Capitalism doesn't get destroyed because almost everybody realizes that we simply don't have anything better.

And people in this society can't specialize, because why?

This is why:

I said that there must be one authority and that it has to be the decentralized direct democracy that involves all the communicating people in the community.

You already said that your system must have one authority and that said authority must involve all the people, specialized or not. And I already pointed out that the citizens don't have time to learn economics and medicine and law enforcement and refrigerator building and how to be a fireman and how to shoot a gun.

We must delegate authority to experts in order to run the government. Your government doesn't allow authority to be delegated. Your government cannot work.

Trade doesn't neccessarily mean Capitalism.

Yes it does.

throughout history if my tribe was better with a spear, it had no need to trade, it took

Wrong. Sometimes the strongest tribe would indeed take. But that is the exception, not the rule. The strongest tribe will still probably take losses in a fight--if they aren't willing to risk those losses, they will trade instead of fighting.

The strongest empires in the world still engaged in trade because a lot of the time it was simpler and cheaper than fighting. They would be at war with one other nation (or two or three or six) but at the same time would be trading with 43 other nations.

 

[greenpeace]

Perhaps you haven't been reading the news enough, GP. If they disagree with your definition of harm, then in their view your system is harmful. For such people, it's not enough to merely "not be a part of it". Their ethics require them to DESTROY your system. To them, it is unethical and harmful for your system to exist. Anywhere.

Democracy doesn't have this problem. The concept of allowing the people to vote for the system they want is considered acceptable (and non-harmful) by all democracies. That's part of why democratic states hardly ever go to war against each other.

Capitalism, to some degree, does have a problem. The rules of capitalism are well-understood, but there are a few people out there (such as yourself) who consider it harmful and are trying to destroy it. Capitalism doesn't get destroyed because almost everybody realizes that we simply don't have anything better.

There are terrorists who wish to destroy your country, therefore your system fails.
Oh wait, that logic fails because people will disagree with any system.

This is why:

You already said that your system must have one authority and that said authority must involve all the people, specialized or not. And I already pointed out that the citizens don't have time to learn economics and medicine and law enforcement and refrigerator building and how to be a fireman and how to shoot a gun.

We must delegate authority to experts in order to run the government. Your government doesn't allow authority to be delegated. Your government cannot work.

I still don't understand. If I teach someone how to perform surgery, how is that authority?

Yes it does. [trade does inherently mean Capitalism]

So if I give you food in exchange for your labor (or whatever other trade) and then see Bob who has asthma and a lump of gold in his pocket, and I steal the gold with no authority to stop me, is the entire system Capitalist because of the trade I made with you?

Wrong. Sometimes the strongest tribe would indeed take. But that is the exception, not the rule. The strongest tribe will still probably take losses in a fight--if they aren't willing to risk those losses, they will trade instead of fighting.

The strongest empires in the world still engaged in trade because a lot of the time it was simpler and cheaper than fighting. They would be at war with one other nation (or two or three or six) but at the same time would be trading with 43 other nations.

Exactly, when it is beneficial to trade, then they trade. When its not they steal. Capitalism's job is to insure that trading is always > stealing (mainly by having an authority punish those who steal).

 

[BasketCase]

There are terrorists who wish to destroy your country

Did I say terrorists? No.

Ordinary nations. Ordinary people. Though religious people will be some of the most strongly motivated to destroy your system, they are not the only ones. When Communism manifested itself as the USSR, the United States spent the next forty years working to destroy it, and rightly so.

I still don't understand. If I teach someone how to perform surgery

You're missing the point. Actually, I made several points that you missed.

First off, somebody needs to know how to do surgeries before the actual surgery is needed. If your appendix exploded right now, you wouldn't survive four years. You would die in a matter of days. The same if the gas main in your house blows up. You're not gonna be able to put that out with your garden hose, and training to be a fireman is not easy. People have to learn to do these things in advance.

Second, no one person can do all of these, or even most of them. Sure, you can teach a person to do surgery. Can you also teach them law enforcement and dentistry and banking and military strategy? No. The human brain isn't big enough.

Third, your system allows for no method of coaxing enough people to train in these professions. And don't kid yourself--nobody is going to want to volunteer to be surgeon from the goodness of their hearts, because it takes a VERY long time to train as a surgeon and the suicide rate is extremely high.

Fourth, the process of training people for various professions necessarily and unavoidably puts a disproportionate amount of power in a few hands. Making true direct democracy impossible. You can't place all economic decisions in the hands of the voters because very few of them know enough to make an informed decision on the economy. The same with the military. We CFC'ers toss all kinds of military theories around in Off Topic, but the real truth is all of us are as strategically hopeless as Saddam Hussein was.

Yes, you guys can probably all play a MEAN game of Civilization but admit it, almost all of you (myself included) would completely suck at running a real-world military campaign.

Ahem--got a little sidetracked there. Anyway, the point is this: you can't have all the people voting on everything a government needs to do. There are too many things that need doing, and the average voter doesn't know how to do them. You need someone with an economics degree to run the banks; someone with an actual medical degree working in the hospital (actually lots of people with different medical degrees working in the hospital, because medical care today is too extensive for one person to know all of it). You need actual lawyers working in the courts (lots of luck getting every citizen in a country to pass the BAR exam!) We have to elect specialists to make the decisions, which violates one of the basic rules of Greenpeacocracy.

So if I give you food in exchange for your labor (or whatever other trade) and then see Bob who has asthma and a lump of gold in his pocket, and I steal the gold with no authority to stop me, is the entire system Capitalist because of the trade I made with you?

No, the first part is capitalism. The second part is called theft. And just about everybody on Earth realizes that theft is wrong--and harmful.

Exactly, when it is beneficial to trade, then they trade

NOW you're on the right track. The whole point is to tempt people with profit so they trade instead of stealing. That's what paychecks are for: so people will get a job instead of stealing. For a society to accomplish anything, most of the people have to be honest workers instead of thieves. The reason you lock your front door at night (and I already know you do) is because not everybody out there is honest.

 

[Mr_Fusty]

I haven't been on this thread for a while. Thanks for the offer. Its more like lots of little questions than one really big one. If I get time later I'll type out a list, and see what happens.

You're welcome

shuffles off to read some Adam Smith, holding notepad and pen....

 

[onedreamer]

I know I am going to start a ten page debate, a flurry of angry members, a few moderaters constantly watching me, when i don't really feel up to any of it, but I really need to ask:

When Communists look around and see the great that Capitalism has done, how can't they support it? Yes, there is poverty, but that is an unfortunate part of life. With all of the great things we have here and all of the people in America making more money than anyone else in the world and having enough to buy food and luxuries, how can they still not support it.

Thank you for letting me know.

There isn't or hasn't been real communism in the world. There may be communists, but not communism. Communism is much better than Capitalism for the individual, just not practical on a large (country) scale, so it would be hard for an individual communist to support Capitalism instead. However, whatever good deed you're assigning to Capitalism, you are doing it mistakenly. Also I should make you note 2 things:
- it isn't true that people IN AMERICA make more money than anyone else.
- when you "make money", you do so in spite of someone becoming poorer. Is this the good you are talking about when talking of Capitalism ? In order for people to be rich, there should be someone poor. And generally rich people need the poor to exploit them and become even richer, while the poor need the rich to live. This law of life existed way before Capitalism. More or less since when some primitive understood he could "save" and "accumulate" stuff. That day was at the same time a very good and a very bad day for humanity.

 

[greenpeace]

Did I say terrorists? No.

Ordinary nations. Ordinary people. Though religious people will be some of the most strongly motivated to destroy your system, they are not the only ones. When Communism manifested itself as the USSR, the United States spent the next forty years working to destroy it, and rightly so.

Evangelical (sp?) Christians are rather normal people (in terms of % of the population) and many of their religious leaders are heavily against the rather secular nature of American society.

The point is, peope can disagree with any system, its rather irrelevant to this context.

You're missing the point. Actually, I made several points that you missed.

First off, somebody needs to know how to do surgeries before the actual surgery is needed. If your appendix exploded right now, you wouldn't survive four years. You would die in a matter of days. The same if the gas main in your house blows up. You're not gonna be able to put that out with your garden hose, and training to be a fireman is not easy. People have to learn to do these things in advance.

Second, no one person can do all of these, or even most of them. Sure, you can teach a person to do surgery. Can you also teach them law enforcement and dentistry and banking and military strategy? No. The human brain isn't big enough.

Neither of those require authority.

Third, your system allows for no method of coaxing enough people to train in these professions. And don't kid yourself--nobody is going to want to volunteer to be surgeon from the goodness of their hearts, because it takes a VERY long time to train as a surgeon and the suicide rate is extremely high.

If people see that the only way for people in the community and ultimately themselves (I'm thinking teach->retire be saved by students), and they don't think it is worth, than thats their decision.

Fourth, the process of training people for various professions necessarily and unavoidably puts a disproportionate amount of power in a few hands. Making true direct democracy impossible. You can't place all economic decisions in the hands of the voters because very few of them know enough to make an informed decision on the economy. The same with the military. We CFC'ers toss all kinds of military theories around in Off Topic, but the real truth is all of us are as strategically hopeless as Saddam Hussein was.Yes, you guys can probably all play a MEAN game of Civilization but admit it, almost all of you (myself included) would completely suck at running a real-world military campaign.[/

What vast complex issues are there to debate over? All there is would be to decide if someone is causing harm and to insure proper property distribution.

Ahem--got a little sidetracked there. Anyway, the point is this: you can't have all the people voting on everything a government needs to do. There are too many things that need doing, and the average voter doesn't know how to do them. You need someone with an economics degree to run the banks; someone with an actual medical degree working in the hospital (actually lots of people with different medical degrees working in the hospital, because medical care today is too extensive for one person to know all of it). You need actual lawyers working in the courts (lots of luck getting every citizen in a country to pass the BAR exam!) We have to elect specialists to make the decisions, which violates one of the basic rules of Greenpeacocracy.

To run your government requires such things, but to run my government is rather simple. Of course, you may be asking how all the issues that would not be dealt with by the authority. To make it easier I'll put it into an example:
Lets say we have a group that really wants to produce wobbles for the community. Wobbles, need binks and winks to be created. We have the people wanting to mine binks and winks mining that, and those wanting to smelt binks and winks together to produce wobbles. The oranization would be simple:
1. the miners mine binks and winks
2. The miners now own those binks and winks.
3. They may now share the binks and winks with others acording to their need. If the smelters want those binks and winks to make wobbles, the miners may share with those who need it (in this case the smelters).
4. If there are too many binks being mined than the smelters can say, we don't need any more binks. This is not authority because the miners can continue mining if they please without incentive to stop other than natural incentive (which would be the smelters simply can't smelt all these binks).

No, the first part is capitalism. The second part is called theft. And just about everybody on Earth realizes that theft is wrong--and harmful.

Not really, If I'm in tribe X and see that the people in my tribe could kick tribe Y's buttocks and get alot of stuff from it, than historically thats what would happen.

NOW you're on the right track. The whole point is to tempt people with profit so they trade instead of stealing. That's what paychecks are for: so people will get a job instead of stealing. For a society to accomplish anything, most of the people have to be honest workers instead of thieves. The reason you lock your front door at night (and I already know you do) is because not everybody out there is honest.

Sorry, but this a kinda of pet peeve, I don't lock my door at night, I lock it when I close the door.

Anyway, your right that the authority tries to get people to trade instead of steal, (and by the way you get a paycheck when you steal, and the authority almost never tries to artificially raise "honest" paychecks to compensate for stealing) they use jails to compensate for stealing. The same thing hold basically true for my societies structure in that it tries to hold property distribution but its distribution is boviously different.

 

[BasketCase]

- when you "make money", you do so in spite of someone becoming poorer. Is this the good you are talking about when talking of Capitalism ? In order for people to be rich, there should be someone poor. And generally rich people need the poor to exploit them and become even richer, while the poor need the rich to live. This law of life existed way before Capitalism. More or less since when some primitive understood he could "save" and "accumulate" stuff. That day was at the same time a very good and a very bad day for humanity.

I can testify from personal experience that this isn't the way it works.

My first two jobs were in software development, and I made significantly more money than I am now. Now, can you explain to me how you exploit people by writing software for them???

At the end of that second software job I got tired of the high stress level (actually, it was affecting my health, and not in a good way) so I went for a lower-paying job which is stress-free and also lets me post in here and play World of Warcraft at work.

I am currently poor, relative to my previous job. Yet I never exploited any poor people at either one. Why am I currently poor? Because of a choice I made.

You don't get rich by exploiting poor people. Sure, you can take money from poor people, but where did the poor people get their money from to begin with??? You get rich by doing work, plain and simple. Getting rich by stealing from the poor is the exception, not the rule. And it's a pretty stupid way to get rich. A far better way to get rich is to steal from the rich.

 

[greenpeace]

I'm real sorry for incovenience, but I messed up in my post about the organization of labor and didn't get to edit it right, until you started responding to it. edit: it seems you didn't respond to my post before I corrected it after all, so no incovenience, woohoo!

I can testify from personal experience that this isn't the way it works.

My first two jobs were in software development, and I made significantly more money than I am now. Now, can you explain to me how you exploit people by writing software for them???

At the end of that second software job I got tired of the high stress level (actually, it was affecting my health, and not in a good way) so I went for a lower-paying job which is stress-free and also lets me post in here and play World of Warcraft at work.

I am currently poor, relative to my previous job. Yet I never exploited any poor people at either one. Why am I currently poor? Because of a choice I made.

You don't get rich by exploiting poor people. Sure, you can take money from poor people, but where did the poor people get their money from to begin with??? You get rich by doing work, plain and simple. Getting rich by stealing from the poor is the exception, not the rule. And it's a pretty stupid way to get rich. A far better way to get rich is to steal from the rich.

I have to agree that i Capitalism gaining wealth does not always mean exploitation (at least not directly). If I give you capital I created myself for doing something you really love to so, thats certainly not exploiting anyone. My qualm is that this certainly does not always happen (in fact its unfortunantely rare).

 

[BasketCase]

The point is, peope can disagree with any system, its rather irrelevant to this context.

Here's the relevance: your system is tailor-made to cause people to fight. Capitalism is not.

Capitalism runs on rules that are already accepted (not liked, but accepted) by everybody because it plays to our survival instincts. Greenpeacocracy is custom-made to piss off everybody who doesn't live in it (including me). A system that makes enemies out of everybody cannot survive.

That's why capitalism has survived: because it's enemies (radical Communists, anarchist wing-nuts, etc) are very few.

First off, somebody needs to know how to do surgeries before the actual surgery is needed. If your appendix exploded right now, you wouldn't survive four years. You would die in a matter of days. The same if the gas main in your house blows up. You're not gonna be able to put that out with your garden hose, and training to be a fireman is not easy. People have to learn to do these things in advance.

Second, no one person can do all of these, or even most of them. Sure, you can teach a person to do surgery. Can you also teach them law enforcement and dentistry and banking and military strategy? No. The human brain isn't big enough.

Neither of those require authority.

Actually, the first one does. It requires schools. Why can't you teach somebody else to do surgery, you asked? Because it takes an entire school to teach it. And yes, a school is an authority system.

The second one didn't have anything to do with authority--it was simply another reason Greenpeacocracy cannot succeed. You can't rely on good-natured neighbors to come to your assistance when you get in trouble. Not because they're bad people--most of them are good people. It's that they won't know how to get you out of trouble.

What vast complex issues are there to debate over? All there is would be to decide if someone is causing harm

There is an ENTIRE INDUSTRY dedicated to doing this one thing (specifically the court system).

See? I prove you wrong by pointing to the real world.

To run your government requires such things, but to run my government is rather simple.

Whereas your failed attempts to prove me wrong rely on hypotheticals. Just because you only used twelve words to describe it doesn't make it simple. "All there is would be to decide if someone is causing harm" as you yourself said. Harm can be done in THOUSANDS of different ways. What do you need in order to define harm? Thousands of different laws.

Already the system has become more complicated than you can handle. And that's just this one thing. Throw in all the other things needed for your supposedly simple society, and the result is inevitable: you don't know how to create a Greenpeacocracy because it's too complicated.

Of course, you may be asking how all the issues that would not be dealt with by the authority. To make it easier I'll put it into an example:

Failed. Lemme skip right to where the problem is:

3. They may now share the binks and winks with others acording to their need. If the smelters want those binks and winks to make wobbles, the miners may give give it to the smelters so that the smelters may smelt wobbles.

So now the smelters make wobbles--and keep all the wobbles for themselves.

What's that called?

Stealing.

Why the hell do you think we have police and a court system, for Christ's sake??? To prevent people from doing this. Pow, you've got an authority on your hands.

This is not incentive (that is I'll give you binks if you make wobbles)

Yes it is. If I want binks, I have to give you wobbles. Otherwise I don't get any binks. That is an incentive.

because of the "may" (as in there is no contract).

I "may" get a job and work for a paycheck. But I don't have to. If I quit my job right now, I will not starve because my investments are more profitable to me than this job is. The word "may" doesn't change a damn thing. The paycheck is still an incentive. I keep the job so I can buy more computer games, more Dr. Pepper, and more ice cream.

Not really, If I'm in tribe X and see that the people in my tribe could kick tribe Y's buttocks and get alot of stuff from it, than historically thats what would happen.

Wrong. Completely wrong. I am STANDING UPON a great big gigantic counterexample right now.

I am standing in the UNITED STATES. We could kick any ass on this planet without breaking a sweat. We choose to trade instead.

And that's just one example. World history (once again, I slap you with real examples) is chock full of nations like this--that were supreme world superpowers, but who prospered mostly with trade instead of with warfare. Before the United States existed, it was England. Before that it was Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, and Russia, in generally random order (actually I just don't remember the exact order because I'm not too good at history). China and Japan ruled their own little corner of the world at various times. But all of these nations indulged in extensive trade. War is the exception, not the rule.

I lock it when I

Close enough.

You'll never say it in here, but your actions prove me right: you know you can't completely trust your fellow humans.

 

[BasketCase]

If I give you capital I created myself for doing something you really love to so, thats certainly not exploiting anyone. My qualm is that this certainly does not always happen (in fact its unfortunantely rare).

Wrong. Exploitation is the exception.

Fifty years ago, an oil company couldn't march into Saudi Arabia and point guns at the citizens and demand that the Saudis build oil wells. The Saudis didn't know how to build them.

The oil companies had to build the wells themselves.


The United States doesn't exploit poor nations to get its advanced weapons--we build them ourselves. For two reasons: because poor people don't know how to build them, and because the weapons are top secret and we don't want to tell anybody else how to build them. Of course, once a weapon becomes public knowledge, sometimes we go ahead and trade for the parts to make them--but only with other First World nations such as England.


Or how about Microsoft? What, did Bill Gates conquer Japan and steal all of Japan's software??? And there's the knockout punch: Bill Gates got rich without exploiting anybody.


You believe that exploitation is the rule because it suits your political agenda. No other reason.

Edit: and yes, I do in fact know the inside of your brain pretty well, because I have waged an ongoing verbal war for most of my life against political radicals in many, many Internet threads. I have had the chance to look inside many, many minds, and I do know how they work.

 

[greenpeace]

Here's the relevance: your system is tailor-made to cause people to fight. Capitalism is not.

Capitalism runs on rules that are already accepted (not liked, but accepted) by everybody because it plays to our survival instincts. Greenpeacocracy is custom-made to piss off everybody who doesn't live in it (including me). A system that makes enemies out of everybody cannot survive.

How is this pissing anyone in the outside world off? It doesn't really affect anyone outside the society at all.

That's why capitalism has survived: because it's enemies (radical Communists, anarchist wing-nuts, etc) are very few.

Thats why Monarchy has survived throughout our history, and why Repupblics won't work... oh wait it did survive and become very powerful.

Actually, the first one does. It requires schools. Why can't you teach somebody else to do surgery, you asked? Because it takes an entire school to teach it. And yes, a school is an authority system.

Passing along information does not require authority. Your school system does indeed use authority, but that doesn't mean all places of education require authority.

The second one didn't have anything to do with authority--it was simply another reason Greenpeacocracy cannot succeed. You can't rely on good-natured neighbors to come to your assistance when you get in trouble. Not because they're bad people--most of them are good people. It's that they won't know how to get you out of trouble.

As for your second point (that one person can't do everything), how does it rely on good-nature?

There is an ENTIRE INDUSTRY dedicated to doing this one thing (specifically the court system).

See? I prove you wrong by pointing to the real world.

Your system has an extremely complex system of thousands of laws and exceptions that require a life time to specialize in. Mine gives a simple definition of harm and property distibution, that is very easy to understand and debate upon.

Whereas your failed attempts to prove me wrong rely on hypotheticals. Just because you only used twelve words to describe it doesn't make it simple. "All there is would be to decide if someone is causing harm" as you yourself said. Harm can be done in THOUSANDS of different ways. What do you need in order to define harm? Thousands of different laws.

Already the system has become more complicated than you can handle. And that's just this one thing. Throw in all the other things needed for your supposedly simple society, and the result is inevitable: you don't know how to create a Greenpeacocracy because it's too complicated.

I described my entire society in about two different paragraphs. Those two paragraphs contain all the laws that anyone needs to go by. It isn't complicated at all. Yes, there is an infinite amount of ways to harm someone, but each one either does or does not harm depending on whether it violates the rules in those two paragraphs.

Failed. Lemme skip right to where the problem is:


So now the smelters make wobbles--and keep all the wobbles for themselves.

What's that called?

Stealing.
Why the hell do you think we have police and a court system, for Christ's sake??? To prevent people from doing this. Pow, you've got an authority on your hands.

Its not stealing because you gave me binks, and I kept them.

Yes it is. If I want binks, I have to give you wobbles. Otherwise I don't get any binks. That is an incentive.

Thats a natural incentive, because in any society it will always be the case that if I want wobbles I have to give you blinks.

I "may" get a job and work for a paycheck. But I don't have to. If I quit my job right now, I will not starve because my investments are more profitable to me than this job is. The word "may" doesn't change a damn thing. The paycheck is still an incentive. I keep the job so I can buy more computer games, more Dr. Pepper, and more ice cream.

"May" does make a deal, because if you are in a contract that you must do something to get something, with the may you are not dependent on getting that something.

Wrong. Completely wrong. I am STANDING UPON a great big gigantic counterexample right now.

I am standing in the UNITED STATES. We could kick any ass on this planet without breaking a sweat. We choose to trade instead.

And that's just one example. World history (once again, I slap you with real examples) is chock full of nations like this--that were supreme world superpowers, but who prospered mostly with trade instead of with warfare. Before the United States existed, it was England. Before that it was Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, and Russia, in generally random order (actually I just don't remember the exact order because I'm not too good at history). China and Japan ruled their own little corner of the world at various times. But all of these nations indulged in extensive trade. War is the exception, not the rule.

If you can kick anyone invade Canada for its natural resources. Besides, you prooved my point that there must either be an athority to insure trade is better than theft, or that theft happens to be less profitable than trade.
But this is completely irrelevant to this context.

I lock when I

Close enough.

You'll never say it in here, but your actions prove me right: you know you can't completely trust your fellow humans.

Did you quote me right, cause I have no idea what you're saying.

 

[Gecko1]

What Is The Point Of All Of This???

Someone Close This Pointless Thread.

Now, It's Turned Into A One Vendetta.

 

[GenMarshall]

What Is The Point Of All Of This???

Someone Close This Pointless Thread.

Now, It's Turned Into A One Vendetta.

This little button

is your friend if you want to have a mod come over.

 

[BasketCase]

What Is The Point Of All Of This???

I'm just here to stress-test capitalism. If it's a good system it will stand up to the pressure.

Aside from that, this spat between me and GP isn't likely to go anywhere, because he's got the H-word in his sig.

 

[BasketCase]

How is this pissing anyone in the outside world off?

I already covered that: because they say your system does harm to people.

Mine gives a simple definition of harm and property distibution, that is very easy to understand and debate upon.

I know. And I say it isn't anywhere near enough. Given the choice between my really complex system and yours, I'll choose mine every time. Stick a gun to my head, I won't budge. You can't make me accept your system. Ever. I will not live in it, and I will not accept its existence because I say it's cruel.

I favored the destruction of the Soviet Union; I view your system in the same light, and if the U.S. military ever turns its sights upon Greenpeacocracy (actually, it already has) I'll approve the decision to pull the trigger.

I described my entire society in about two different paragraphs. Those two paragraphs contain all the laws that anyone needs to go by.

And I described that same system with one word: Hell. I have a feeling you were possibly just being facetious when you compared your system and nature, but you actually got it spot-on.

 

[greenpeace]

I already covered that: because they say your system does harm to people.

You can say that about any society. Besides, its hard to argue that arguement, since everyone would be willfully volunteering to go and stay in such a society.

I know. And I say it isn't anywhere near enough. Given the choice between my really complex system and yours, I'll choose mine every time. Stick a gun to my head, I won't budge. You can't make me accept your system. Ever. I will not live in it, and I will not accept its existence because I say it's cruel.

How exactly is my system cruel? You get an actual official voice in your government, the most unwanted work you'll do is if you want what you produce. Your system pratically guarentees due to prices that you'll spend most of your day in a job you may not like working, and it gives you very little power over yourself politcally (all you can say is 1/~100 millionth of a say in who will have executive power over you, plus similarly small say in 1/25 of who will be the legislature, plus occasional jury duty).

I favored the destruction of the Soviet Union; I view your system in the same light, and if the U.S. military ever turns its sights upon Greenpeacocracy (actually, it already has) I'll approve the decision to pull the trigger.

The Soviety Union was a cruel dictatorship based on mass-terror, and lust for power.This system gives you the most political freedom a person can have without have more power over others.
I mean, you say this society is cruel, yet you think that a group of people who want (without brainwashing) to be in a certain society should be shot if they come together.

And I described that same system with one word: Hell. I have a feeling you were possibly just being facetious when you compared your system and nature, but you actually got it spot-on.

What makes you think this system will be anything like hell?

 

[BasketCase]

I already covered that: because they say your system does harm to people.

You can say that about any society.

Well, here's the kicker: your system says that about EVERY OTHER SYSTEM. You said it right smack with your definitions: any other system is harmful.

A whole lot of religions already do just that--and look at the results. Wars, terrorism, suicide bombings. Your system automatically pisses off EVERYBODY else, and when a government does that it goes bye-bye real fast.

How exactly is my system cruel?

Because you yourself described it as being very close to life in nature. Life in nature sucks ass. Do the math.

<With Greenpeacocracy> You get an actual official voice in your government

I've already got that.

<With Greenpeacocracy> the most unwanted work you'll do is if you want what you produce

I don't produce ANYTHING, doofus. I work in tech support. I don't have any use for tech support, I can fix my own damn PC when it breaks.

I don't give half a crap about keeping what I produce. I want computer games and Dr. Pepper and pizza and movies to watch with the lady friend. And also satin sheets for when the movie is over and the lady friends wants a little....special attention. I can't produce any of these things. Your obsession with keeping what you produce is bullcrap. I don't care about what I produce, I care about what I want.

And I don't give half a crap about your definition of unwanted labor, either. The labor I do? I want to do it because it gets me computer games and Dr. Pepper and pizza and movies to watch with the lady friend, and also satin sheets for when the movie is over and the lady friend wants the aforementioned nookie.

And it gives you very little power over yourself politcally (all you can say is 1/~100 millionth of a say in who will have executive power over you

That's exactly how it should be, because there are 100 million other American voters besides me. I'm entitled to the same voice as each of them. No more.


Don't try to lure me into your illusiory Utopia with promises of things I already have.

 

[greenpeace]

Well, here's the kicker: your system says that about EVERY OTHER SYSTEM. You said it right smack with your definitions: any other system is harmful.

A whole lot of religions already do just that--and look at the results. Wars, terrorism, suicide bombings. Your system automatically pisses off EVERYBODY else, and when a government does that it goes bye-bye real fast.

Well, your system says anything other than what it defines as not harm is harm, and so everyone with a different definition

Because you yourself described it as being very close to life in nature. Life in nature sucks ass. Do the math.

I said it shares some of the positive aspects in response to you saying tha Capitalism is just like nature. I never said that this system has people eating each other.

I've already got that.[a voice in government]

Yeah, right. You have no direct input into your national government whatsoever. If you were younger than 18 you don't have any say in government whatsoever. In my system if you disagree with a proposition you get to voice and vote directly that you don't like it.

I don't produce ANYTHING, doofus. I work in tech support. I don't have any use for tech support, I can fix my own damn PC when it breaks.

I don't give half a crap about keeping what I produce. I want computer games and Dr. Pepper and pizza and movies to watch with the lady friend. And also satin sheets for when the movie is over and the lady friends wants a little....special attention. I can't produce any of these things. Your obsession with keeping what you produce is bullcrap. I don't care about what I produce, I care about what I want.

And I don't give half a crap about your definition of unwanted labor, either. The labor I do? I want to do it because it gets me computer games and Dr. Pepper and pizza and movies to watch with the lady friend.

And you'd probably work 12 hour shifts at a steel mill if it was the best job that would get you ends meat. The point is that there is no guarentee that products are worth the effort of constructing them in Capitalism.

That's exactly how it should be, because there are 100 million other American voters besides me. I'm entitled to the same voice as each of them. No more.

No its not, your voice is worthless next to the president's or a senator's, or such people.

Don't try to lure me into your illusiory Utopia with promises of things I already have.

You don't have a real say in decision making, in my system you have a direct say in the decisions that affect you and your community and nobody outside

VI

 

[BasketCase]

Well, your system says anything other than what it defines as not harm is harm

No, it does not. If there's no law against it, it's legal. You went and cast the broadest possible net, and said "any form of labor I disapprove of is harm".

Yeah, right. You have no direct input into your national government whatsoever.

Why should I?

I have no business telling the national government how many B-2 bombers to build, or whether or not to send a sniper to have Osama Bin Laden assassinated, or what changes to make to the prime interest rate, or whether saccharine should be banned as a carcinogen, or whether we should ban cars to stop global warming. These issues SHOULD be handled by (in order) military experts, covert ops experts, economic experts, health experts, environmental experts. Note the frequent use of the word "experts" above.

Now, if a major server in Arizona has a crash and causes your Internet access to go on the fritz, you damn well better come straight to me. Because I'm a tech support expert, and I know how to get the right people out there to fix the server. Unlike that idiot three weeks ago who tried to get me to dispatch a tech to replace the memory sticks on a DOCKING STATION.

You don't put doctors in charge of the military, you don't put soldiers in charge of the economy, and you don't put bankers in charge of the hospitals.

And you'd probably work 12 hour shifts at a steel mill if it was the best job that would get you ends meat.

WRONG. You should have known better than to write that, because I already told you: I did have a better job four years ago, at a higher salary. I told you, to your cyber-face, that I chose a lower-paying job. I already told you I am not working the best job I could to make ends meet. I work six hours a day in a comfy office. Oh, and I get to play Supreme Commander at work.

The point is that there is no guarentee that products are worth the effort of constructing them in Capitalism.

On the contrary, Capitalism ensures that almost everything people make is worth making, and that waste is minimized. Not perfectly, of course, but far better than any other system out there.

No its not, your voice is worthless next to the president's or a senator's, or such people.

I choose the President and the senators. My voice pwns their voice.

You don't have a real say in decision making, in my system you have a direct say in the decisions that affect you and your community and nobody outside

I already have this too, in the form of local elections. Not just for mayors and senators, but for ballot issues. Guess how ballot issues get started? WHEN ORDINARY PEOPLE LIKE ME PROPOSE THEM. The system starts with ME. It answers to ME. I do have a direct say in local government.