Discussion in 'Civ4 - The Second Revolution' started by GarretSidzaka, Sep 13, 2006.
Agreed. So, tell me again how Obama is going to change anything? ;-)
Although I will say, I am glad that you made the Obama leaderhead. That way after he wins the election, I can easily replace Bush in the mod I'm working on.
It does seem hard to envision any way in which he looses. Although, it really depends on how well the racist campaign that the right is going to launch against him goes over. It would not be the first time that I have been shocked at how many people will believe the . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . spewed out by those people.
"baloney", that censored word was supposed to say.
yes. but also there are a crap load of more people who are wising up to statism and the bullsh*t that gets thrown around since the last elections.
here is another one. We need to understand our motivations. Some people just want to care for themselves their families to be happy some feel the world has to be changed...I believe in evolution and in progress in every human being. Some of us carry more knowledge these should be given opportunity to lead in their respective fields. But unless we bring more desire for harmony in our lives and those of others we are going to suffer. So I definitely put stress on development of each individual as a mean to govern a country and conduction of politics...
very much so do i agree with you. every human has the capability to contribute to governing of our society. with concentration of power, unfortunately, the wrong group of people to help the majority of humans, is giving the majority of power.
If anyone believes that free-market capitalism is to blame for this crisis, I have to say, with all due respect, that they are wrong. That would first imply that we have a free-market system, which we do not in any way. Sure the market regulates its own pricing to a degree, but with the Federal Reserve's ability to manipulate the supply of money and credit and its own legislative mandate to "stabilize prices," the market is easily distorted, and the boom and bust cycles are magnified, leading to the depressions which allow more wealthy businesses to overtake the smaller ones and create corporate cartels and monopolies which ultimately overtake the legislatures and bureacracies. Sure, free-market economics isn't the most humanitarian system of economics, but it is the best framework for controlled and stable progress and prosperity.
That is why I am among the few but firm anarcho-capitalists (yet I do have a fondness of anarcho-syndicalism).
I agree with all this completely
Disagree with this last sentence completely
I think that anarcho capitalism would be somewhat better that what we have got now, in that there wouldn't be such organized evil in globalization efforts. but i do greatly love anarcho-syndicalism's ideasl
Some would say that the first point I made above was the work of an Austrian-school economist, however, it was taken right our of Karl Marx's economic theory!
In what manner would you disagree with the concerning statement?
As to anarchism in general, i think that it can be said that trans-national corporations would not exist without the facilitation of government through "free trade agreements," which are actually just subsidy-laden, protectionist paperwork.
I still don't see how any sort of capitalism or socialism can exist at all in the form we would recognise, when no government exists. Capitalism today may cite the government as its enemy, but it is important to recognise that the system did not evolve up from simple agrarian tribes; rather, it arose out of decentralizing the sort of profit-ventures introduced and undertaken by government mercantlists.
I have already stated that I do not believe in anarchism, of any economic bent. It can lead to nothing more advanced than social-Dawinism, and will provide nothing more-refined than simple necessities like force and sustenance.
With respect to capitalism, I argue that while government intervention may be bad after a point, it still requires government ultimately, because it depends firmly upon the existence of money. Given this, a person who has money will grant another money to help him, by selling him a product, capital, or services. A certain degree of mutualism is sponsored when peoples' greed is displaced to a commodity that they all need to better themelves, and in turn, need to cooperate with others to earn. Without government-produced money the temptation is too great to simply mint one's own money, or steal, or to lapse back into a barbaric sort of greed. Lest you think that money is the root of all evil and nothing-but, I remind you that without it, we would all be going to the market with guns to get what we needed.
That in mind, socialism of a sort can and will exist in a system of anarchy, but it is nothing like the utopian anarchist world Marx envisioned. People will redistribute everything and there will be no necessary permanent view of private property, but the majority of commodities will end up in the hands of the strong, because people are greedy, and it is innevitable that authority will generate out of strength. So while I believe citizens should have the right to own guns, and own businesses, simply giving them all those things is not the way to ensure equality. Somebody's going to always be a better businessman or better shot, so what starts as a system of competition inevitably degenerates into bully-reign.
Citing Hobbes in "Leviathan," there are two means by which an individual may take possession of something: by simply taking it and keeping it by force as in a state of omniarchy, or governments may be instituted so as to make the exchange of property voluntary and ensure that the contract between individuals is not broken. In omniarchy, everything is ours, and nothing is mine. Everything is belongs to who ever can take it. In capitalism, anything can be mine so long as the legitimate owners agree to a transaction absent of fraud, force, and price fixing. Number one thing about capitalism: no one has to sell you anything, and you don't have to buy anything they are selling. The idea of buying and selling is simply this: to exploit one's own excellences so as to acquire things created by the excellences of others, ie, to do what you do best so you don't have to do what you do worst. The difference between labor and the wealthy is that the wealthy seek the wealth of labor wherease labor seeks the property of the wealthy.
This is not the american practice. american corporations are notorious for fraud, force, and price fixing.
Wrong again. In nearly all capitalist societies, you must buy food, water, shelter and power or else you die starving in the cold.
not really. labor seeks subsistance and the dream of being wealthy. in reality is it next to impossible to break from labor to wealth.
...then it really isn't capitalism but rather a failure of the only purpose of government: to protect the contract.
I was hoping we could end up here! Why must I buy food? Why must I buy water? Why must I buy shelter or power?
Labor is only labor if it is exploited, as in, it produces more than it is allowed to consume. Labor works for what? To pay for the things it has or wants. Labor decides to open a store with the hope that it may become wealthy, at which point, labor becomes the exploiter. Labor, under Marx's understanding, stands out in that it works for more than it is paid. The laborer is not to be equated with the employed. The generally employed are capable of consuming more than it produces. The laborer is among the employed, but more specifically, is different in that it is incapable of exploitation.
Economics would be better understood if we consider every participant to either be an exploiter or a laborer.
EDIT: Forgive me for my misuse of the words labor and wealthy in the previous post, I hope I have clarified my understanding here.
your all good
its nice to have the debate going again. and your are obviously well read. it is my pleasure that you came.
right now im trying to get a fix on where you stand politically
have you ever tried the political compass test? www.politicalcompass.org
In the conflict of the claims of society with the claims of the individual two ideal and absolute solutions confront one another. There is the demand of the group that the individual should subordinate himself more or less completely or even lose his independent existence in the community, the smaller must be immolated or self-offered to the larger unit. He must accept the need of a society as his own need, the desire of the society as his own desire; he must live not for himself but for the tribe, clan, commune or nation of which he is a member. The ideal and absolute solution from the individual´s standpoint would be a society that existed not for itself, for its all-owerriding collective purpose, but for the good of the individual and his fulfilment, for the greater and more perfect life of all its members. Representing as far as possible his best self and helping him to realise it, it would respect the freedom of each of its members and maintain itself not by law and force but by the free and spontaneous consent of its constituent persons. An ideal society of either kind does not exist anywhere and would be most difficult to create, more difficult still to keep in precarious existence so long as individual man clings to his egoism as the primary motive of existence. A general but not complete domination of the society over the individual is the easier way and it is the system that Nature from the first instictively adopts and keeps in equilibrum by rigorous law, compelling custom and careful indoctrination of the still subservient and ill-developed intelligence of the human creature.
...something that may interests you
but i also understand why you say such a society would be precarious. in america, the national collective purpose has be compromised by corporate needs, and the only collective goal of the corporations is economic growth and profits (at any cost)
You have hit upon a very common theme among mans sins, egoism. Now I will ask, because of my next piece, does egoism equate to self-awareness or just self-centeredness? For this next piece, I am assuming the egoism delves into the realm of the self-centered Human.
It seems from my perspective within history that one Human believing themselves(being self, group, ideology) superior to all others(Human or otherwise) leads to oppression. By oppression I mean that which was defined by Freire as oppression, the replacement of an entities own will by another's will. So from my perspective it would follow that if oppression is elimination of self-will, then it is also incompatible with a society that wishes to maximize the fulfillment of every member. So then institutions that further or maintain oppression are also in opposition and incompatible with such a society.
Unfortunately such institutions are very abundant in our civilization; in many of the most pervasive institutions that effect us. Here are some basic thoughts on that:
Schooling - Probably one of the greatest victories of the Collectivist zeitgeist has been the global implementation of the schooling system. At every level, the will of students is dictated to them by a hierarchy of teachers, administrators, and 'curricula'. Most allowed expression of individual will is only permitted with equal forfeiture of their will in other regards. This could be expressed as submission to centralized sport league culture, restrictions and direction of art, academic study of directed content. Additional arguments of how schooling is oppressive can be found in Paulo Freire's "Pedagoguey of the Oppressed" and Ivan Illich's "Deschooling Society". Freire is a more philosophical text while Illich is more of a logician's text.
Religion - To start, this is not an indictment of all religion or its ideas. However it is an examination of how parts of religion relate to oppression. Much of it was inspired by YouTube videos of interviews with persons of all faiths. A lot of the world is concerned by the actions of the monotheistic community, so that is an interesting place to start. According to many monotheists, the Universe, the Earth, and all it entails belong to God. This God thus commands the will of all within these spheres. This seems natural and right under these belief systems. However there comes a time when God belongs to a group of people. So all these things that belong to God now belong to this group of people. This includes the will of creation and all its components. So as a result a situation emerges where this group's principles lead it to replace everyone else's will with their own. It seems that any belief system that gives God, or the God's, the natural right to be oppressive must itself encourage oppression to some degree. By the same token if Humanity raises itself to the level of supreme dominion, it must become oppressive to the rest of creation. So religions(including Atheism) that idolize oppressive entities are themselves contributing to oppression and incompatible with a free society.
Capitalism - The oppressive nature of capitalism in academic terms almost does not need stating. However even if it did, it has been stated very recently in this thread. The individual will of labor would not be exploitation by others. Also I will further contend that capitalism does not suggest who owns the capital, just that the world is sorted into classes of bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, proletariat, lumpen-proletariat.
very elegantly worded my friend. i can't wait to hear more of your ideas, and contemplations
Keeping things real (as opposed to the theories above) : what do you guys (a question asked to the americans among you) think of a social aid system, applied to various matters, such as unemployment rent, housing allocation....?
I think they are a step in the right direction. but there is a fine line between social welfare and the welfare state.
i think that unemployment is a very important program, and my mother is on housing allocation herself. i think that much more money needs to be spent on social aid, to bring us up to par with Europe.
Separate names with a comma.