Would you rather live in a Socialist or Libertian State?

Socialist or Libertian State?


  • Total voters
    56

CCA

Emperor
Joined
Jul 13, 2003
Messages
1,449
Taken and edited without permission from another forum.
Originally posted by Zor:

One day, you are scooped up by Q and you are given an option between living in one of these two colonies set up on an earthlike extrasolar planet colonized a few hundred years in the future, both colony (which were settled by STL colony ships) arrived about 75 years ago and decided to claim two diferent continents for themselves. Both have 200-300 thousand people living on them and have set about settling the choice regions of the planet (places with climates like Rome, Perth Australia or Buenos Aires) with a single major city with some industry and surrounding it for about a hundred kilometers is farmland and a few minor towns and cities surrounding it. Technologically things are not majorly more advanced than today, cars run on hydrogen, there are developing internets, video games have been produced, vacuum cleaners are all automated, Power needs are being satisfied via solar and coal power right now and most likely there is going fusion power stations in a few decades, Human labour is cheaper for manufacturing in a lot of sectors due to limited industrialization, agriculture is mechanized to roughly the degree it is today and while they have know how to produce spacecraft they are at are far from building any sort of spacecraft due to lack of industrialization in that area. However, they differ as such...

The First colony ship to arrive was funded and launched by Marxist/Leninists who desired to create a worker's paradice out of system. The colonists have orgenized themselves into a socialist state that is in many ways similer in its operation to the Pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union both economically (IE A command economy with state ownership of industry, money does exist, but only officially towards assigning worth in material goods to labour, not investing it to make more money) and politically (One central party that lords over the nation with censorship in place). However, there is a few key diferences. First off, While there is a small standing army it does not receive nearly as large a precentage of the Industrial output that the red army got in the Soviet Union. Secondly, agriculture is largely decollectivised. Thirdly, the central economic planning commitiee is not as prone to making massive Stalinistic quotas that are along the lines of "if the chairmen of the People's Supreme Council says there will be ten thousand tractors, there will be ten thousand tractors and damn the human cost" and try to set more realistic goals with input from local areas. Forthly, the same applies to censorship, its relatively tight but not stalin tight (if you say jokingly something unflatering about the weight of Mr Chairman of the People's supreme council, you won't be sent off to a forced labour camp for the next twenty years as a trator). Finally, they are more tollerant towards sexuality and religion than the Soviet Union was.

Arriving about a year afterwards was a group of Libertarians that have established a society with a very small limited government. Said government is a federal system that maintains public schools that go upto the 10th grade (that are grossly underfunded compared to Communist schools or most modern schools in the developed world), prints money, keeps property records, maintains a small military (less than 500 people and almost all of them are on reserve) and a few small police forces, but that is about it. As such, Taxation is very low for all levels. These are Secular Liberarians that don't care about sexuallity so long as its consensual and support freedom of religion. Drugs from dope to meth are legal for anyone over the age of 18 and the NRA would feel right at home with the freedom one has to arm oneself with anything up to morters and RPGs. THe majority of the means of production are privately owned There is no minimum wage here and while the proles can generally keep themselves fed and clothed, the average person is roughly in the PRC/Mexico level of income and if you end up unemployed, well you best hope that people have decided to be charitable.

Please note that here you are NOT a top executive of a major corperation nor a Major party member. You are you with your talents updated.


Which state would you rather live in and why?
 
Taken and edited without permission from another forum.
Originally posted by Zor:

One day, you are scooped up by Q and you are given an option between living in one of these two colonies set up on an earthlike extrasolar planet colonized a few hundred years in the future, both colony (which were settled by STL colony ships) arrived about 75 years ago and decided to claim two diferent continents for themselves. Both have 200-300 thousand people living on them and have set about settling the choice regions of the planet (places with climates like Rome, Perth Australia or Buenos Aires) with a single major city with some industry and surrounding it for about a hundred kilometers is farmland and a few minor towns and cities surrounding it. Technologically things are not majorly more advanced than today, cars run on hydrogen, there are developing internets, video games have been produced, vacuum cleaners are all automated, Power needs are being satisfied via solar and coal power right now and most likely there is going fusion power stations in a few decades, Human labour is cheaper for manufacturing in a lot of sectors due to limited industrialization, agriculture is mechanized to roughly the degree it is today and while they have know how to produce spacecraft they are at are far from building any sort of spacecraft due to lack of industrialization in that area. However, they differ as such...

The First colony ship to arrive was funded and launched by Marxist/Leninists who desired to create a worker's paradice out of system. The colonists have orgenized themselves into a socialist state that is in many ways similer in its operation to the Pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union both economically (IE A command economy with state ownership of industry, money does exist, but only officially towards assigning worth in material goods to labour, not investing it to make more money) and politically (One central party that lords over the nation with censorship in place). However, there is a few key diferences. First off, While there is a small standing army it does not receive nearly as large a precentage of the Industrial output that the red army got in the Soviet Union. Secondly, agriculture is largely decollectivised. Thirdly, the central economic planning commitiee is not as prone to making massive Stalinistic quotas that are along the lines of "if the chairmen of the People's Supreme Council says there will be ten thousand tractors, there will be ten thousand tractors and damn the human cost" and try to set more realistic goals with input from local areas. Forthly, the same applies to censorship, its relatively tight but not stalin tight (if you say jokingly something unflatering about the weight of Mr Chairman of the People's supreme council, you won't be sent off to a forced labour camp for the next twenty years as a trator). Finally, they are more tollerant towards sexuality and religion than the Soviet Union was.

Arriving about a year afterwards was a group of Libertarians that have established a society with a very small limited government. Said government is a federal system that maintains public schools that go upto the 10th grade (that are grossly underfunded compared to Communist schools or most modern schools in the developed world), prints money, keeps property records, maintains a small military (less than 500 people and almost all of them are on reserve) and a few small police forces, but that is about it. As such, Taxation is very low for all levels. These are Secular Liberarians that don't care about sexuallity so long as its consensual and support freedom of religion. Drugs from dope to meth are legal for anyone over the age of 18 and the NRA would feel right at home with the freedom one has to arm oneself with anything up to morters and RPGs. However, there are five major corperations that have control over the populace and hold monopolies over manufacturing and distributing. There is some small buissness present, but most of this is geared towards the small upper and middle classes (which make up about four to five precent of the total population). Some of the Corperations even have "corperate security forces", which ammount to private militias. There is no minimum wage here and while the proles can generally keep themselves fed and clothed, the average person is roughly in the PRC/Mexico level of income and if you end up unemployed, well you best hope that people have decided to be charitable.

Please note that here you are NOT a top executive of a major corperation nor a Major party member. You are you with your talents updated.


Which state would you rather live in and why?

What you described here is not even close to a libertarian state. 5 major corporations that control the populace? This not libertarianism, not even remotely close.
 
So Mild Socialist vs. Wild Crazy Off-the-Deep-End Libertarians? Doesn't this seem a bit biased to you?

Yeah, not to mention that what he described isn't Libertarianism at all. Hey, I'm not even libertarianist, I don't support their ideas, but what he described just isn't it.

Libertarinism would be total freedom with minimal government, probably only a law system + enforcement, election of public officials, and that's it. There wouldn't be public schools, there wouldn't be corporations with monopoly who controlled the economy, the average person would not be poor - because the free market would create affluence, not poverty.
 
What you described here is not even close to a libertarian state. 5 major corporations that control the populace? This not libertarianism, not even remotely close.
The corporations have been edited out. But without a corporation where is the alternative power structure?
 
What makes you say that everyone is just barely wealthy enough to keep themselves fed and clothed. Are you trying to tell me that if there wasn't a minimum wage in America, we'd all be dirt-poor? :lol:
 
Sounds like you made the socialist world seem like a pradadise compared to the libertarian world. Kind of bias don't you think?

But excluding your examples, I will glady take a libertarian system over a socialist system. Not sure if it was the point of the thread but I choose libertarian state based on my own idea of what libertarianism and socialism is and not really yours.
 
The corporations have been edited out. But without a corporation where is the alternative power structure?

??? Do you know what Libertarianism is? It is the lack of a power structure, or near lack of it. It is as close to anarchy as you can come without actually being an anarchist.

And there need not be ANY structure to control the economy, in fact, the economy operates better when it is left to its own (more effectively, appropriately allocating the scarce resources where they are wanted). Ever heard of "The Invisible Hand" concept in economics? Nobody is in charge of making sure that everyone in Manhattan gets fed, yet they do! It is the invisible hand of economics at work. Supply and demand will make sure that resources (that includes labor) will be distributed.
 
Wow. The thing you described is called a libertarian state?

Drugs from dope to meth are legal for anyone over the age of 18 and the NRA would feel right at home with the freedom one has to arm oneself with anything up to morters and RPGs. However, there are five major corperations that have control over the populace and hold monopolies over manufacturing and distributing. There is some small buissness present, but most of this is geared towards the small upper and middle classes (which make up about four to five precent of the total population).

1. Legalizing "Drugs from dope to meth" is not libertarian, it is just :crazyeye: . The same with rights to have morters and RPGs.

2. 5 monopoly corporations that control over the populace? A libertarian state is a state that supports small business, thereby encouraging the growth of middle class. Good thing you edited it out.

the average person is roughly in the PRC/Mexico level of income

That says it all. But really, do you consider PRC a libertarian state? :confused: If it is really libertarian, it will surely provide a more high quality of living.

the small upper and middle classes (which make up about four to five precent of the total population).

In most libertarian states now, middle class makes more them 50% of total population.

agriculture is largely decollectivised.

But that means that the state cannot be called completely Communist!

if you say jokingly something unflatering about the weight of Mr Chairman of the People's supreme council, you won't be sent off to a forced labour camp for the next twenty years as a trator

If you'll be sent to forced labour camp for 5 years "only" for your joke, I do prefer that :crazyeye: "libertarian" state. However, if you will not be sent off to anywhere, I prefer these mild Commies.
 
The desriptions are rather misleading. That's communist, not socialist, and the other is crazy, not libertarian.
 
Well I didn't write it...

I made some edits, It's roughly the same level of income as PRC/Mexico because the population of both countries are pretty small, plus they've just started !!!
 
Lone wolf said:
1. Legalizing "Drugs from dope to meth" is not libertarian, it is just . The same with rights to have morters and RPGs.
Actually he is right on this one. Both drugs and guns would be legalized in a pure libertarian country. So would prostitution and most sexual perversions, perhaps not pedophilia, as they wouldn't be legal, consenting adults.

And yeah, it is funny how he mentions that the people of the libertarian state will be poor like in Mexico and China, when both those countries are strongly left-wing socialist - opposite of libertarian :lol:
Looking at his own examples of poor countries he should have realized which people would be poor, yeah it would be the ones in the socialist colony, not the libertarian one (in the actual meaning of socialist and libertarian)
 
Well I didn't write it...

I made some edits, It's roughly the same level of income as PRC/Mexico because the population of both countries are pretty small, plus they've just started !!!

Well, if you want to make it "fair" (though I doubt that was the intent of whoever wrote this), you'd want them both to have started around the same time, right? So either neither or both of them should have such a low income level, right?
 
Look, their income level wouldn't be low just because they are small, nor because they just started. However, their standard of living would be smaller if they haven't had time to build up the industries; and also if they are small and have no trade with the outside world - that would result in less niche goods being available, in other words a lower living standard.

However, if they have the technological know-how and can trade with the outside world, it would not take them long to build up their economy to catch up with the rest of the world. Look at Israel, they made a little desert into a thriving country in a couple of decades. And that with hostile nations on every side, and constant wars and attacks. Imagine how well they'd do if they had peaceful neighbours and open trade.
 
Socialist or Libertarian ideologies are not standard.
It would depend on the actual nature and practice of both governments.

I would like to live in 'socialist' Sweden, because it is still capitalist.
I would like to live in a Libertarian situation, if it also had free ideals.

:)
 
Actually he is right on this one. Both drugs and guns would be legalized in a pure libertarian country.

If you consider anarchism to be an extreme libertarian ideology, them yes. But to me, liberalism includes moderation in its values, and the words "liberal" and "extreme" are self-excluding. Well, the thing with these political definitions that everyone understands them differently...
 
If you consider anarchism to be an extreme libertarian ideology, them yes. But to me, liberalism includes moderation in its values, and the words "liberal" and "extreme" are self-excluding. Well, the thing with these political definitions that everyone understands them differently...

A libertarian allows for great freedom both economically and socially (prostitution is ok, drugs, whatever), this is why I won't call myself a libertarian, because I am for very free markets, but not for great freedom socially.
 
Back
Top Bottom