One world government

Mr.Thomas
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
One world government

Correct me if im wrong but in the babble it says that one of the indicators of the 'end-times' will be a one world government n shit...

But would a one world government be better than whats in place now? Ive always wondered how it would work...

 Any thoughts?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Depends on how it's run.

Depends on how it's run.


PonkeyDon
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Are we talking about

Are we talking about Revelations or that mad prophet wasshisname nostradamus?

 

I thought Revelations was about the Roman Empire, but my theology knowledge isn't first rate, just having read the Bible itself and not a huge amount of the supporting literature and doctrines.

 

Question the religious on their articles of faith long enough and they will want to burn your house down. Faith teaches poor debating skills.


lucidfox13
lucidfox13's picture
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I one world government would

I one world government would probably be akin to Hitler or Stalin's rule.  If you give an elite few power, they will abuse that power.  It's human nature.  I would not want to live in a world like that.

JESUS SAVES!!! .... and takes only half damage!


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Not nececcarily. If an one

Not nececcarily. If an one government world will emerge, it could take millions of years before human nature would be evolved enough not to abuse the power. Then the one government world would be plausible, because everyone living in the planet-wide nation would want to contribute to the nation and keep it standing. The evolved humans would also be very utilitaristic, and they wouldn't demand much reward for contributing.

Ofcourse this is highly utopistic speculation, and I don't take it that seriously.

 Well, one can always dream Smiling.

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I think you would need a

I think you would need a lot of checks and balances to make sure that you wouldn't end up with a Hitler or Stalin.  Basically you would need a true democracy.  I don't think there's potential for a Hitler or a Stalin to survive in Canada, for example, due to the democractic process.  I also don't think we can associate today's mindset with a single government because of how far away it is and the amount of changes that need to take place first.

I am a very big supporter of globalization.  I don't think you can just add 1 government to the way the world is today though.  Peoples mindsets need to change, and I think it will over time.  A very long time.

If you really think bout the # of things that have to happen prior to really being capable of eliminating borders it's fairly daunting.  Religion would need to basically take a back seat or be removed.  It would probably need to be a social government.  A society where we can remove economics and capitalism from the picture.  You can't have world peace and remove the borders with the inequity that is going on in the world.  It would take a gigantic shift in resources and money from it's current dispersal to allow for that to happen.

The whole worlds perception on how to go about life needs to change.  I really do think globalization is a beutiful dream though.  But it really will take a number of generations for the ideals of 1 community to settle in.

It may even take a 'global' type adversity (maybe global warming, maybe oil) to change peoples mindsets. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm wondering if anyone's

I'm wondering if anyone's thought of the logistical nightmare of a one-world government.  Has anyone even considered:

A) You're talking about forcing the 3 major Angry Religions, plus Buddhism, Taoism, and Hindu, into one government.  Have you noticed what happens when you try to get a New York sized country to agree on one religion in the middle east?  And someone's going to get the whole world to agree?

B) If they're not going to agree, has anyone thought about the military force necessary to quell uprisings in the entire world???  It would be constant, total, chaos!

C) What advantage would there be in a "figurehead" world government if the reality was that individual states (countries) ran themselves in a more or less autonomous way and paid tribute to this one-world-government?  If there wasn't a measurable increase in the general well being for everybody, we're back to revolts.  Even a figurehead government wouldn't last very long.

D) This is just talking about religion.  You think it's hard to pass a law about taxes in America, try getting any consensus across the whole world!

E) Speaking of taxes, what about the incredible disparity in income vs. taxes around the world.  How are you going to come up with a single set of laws to apply to everybody.  If you don't do that, it's not a one world government... it's a figurehead.

I could go on.  It's just insanity to think about it! 

 

Anybody who talks about a one world government as a real possibility (in the forseeable future) is either crazy, ignorant, or theist.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


andrewgor
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
if you like the idea of a

if you like the idea of a one goverment rule all, you'd probably be interested in reading philip k. dick books. start with the Man in the high castle.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Anybody

Hambydammit wrote:

Anybody who talks about a one world government as a real possibility (in the forseeable future) is either crazy, ignorant, or theist.

 

You're right.  It wont happen in my lifetime, or the next 50 years.  But I do think it's something worth working towards.  The amount of things that need to change in the world before it can happen are gigantic though there's no question about that. 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
IMO before world government

IMO before world government could be possible you'd have to have very, very fast, cheap travel to anywhere in the world in a few hours or less. Then, after a century or two of that, you'd have most people in the world linguistically and culturally similar. At that point, some kind of world government might be possible, not before.

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: IMO

Tilberian wrote:

IMO before world government could be possible you'd have to have very, very fast, cheap travel to anywhere in the world in a few hours or less. Then, after a century or two of that, you'd have most people in the world linguistically and culturally similar. At that point, some kind of world government might be possible, not before.

 

My 50 year comment wasn't thought out but just randomly typed...and my life time is only going to be about 50 years so that was redundant too.

It'll be a couple generations before this is something that can really start to show progress.  But I think it's our job in this day to promote social changes that will ultimatly work towards a true '1 world' mindset that promotes equality and cooperation.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Those who think we will

Those who think we will evolve to a new human nature that will support one world government are misusing evolution. We can't predict how or even if human nature will evolve over time with any certainty, and certainly optimism is an invalid basis for trying.

But I think the idea is fundamentally bad. Governments do not, as a rule, become more free and less corrupt as they get larger; in fact it seems to me that the opposite occurs. Governments attract people who seek power, and the more powerful the government, the more it will attract power-mongers.

My ideal is for governmental power to be held at a very local level, and then those small governments would interact with each other in friendly agreements which would allow for free trade, free movement and employment, intellectual free exchange and cooperation on large projects. Rather than entrusting all our freedoms to an unresponsive monolithic central bureaucracy, so large that it is immune to criticism and able to control everything, we would rely on responsive local self-limited governments to mediate disputes and fulfill the basic purpose of government.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It would completely depend

It would completely depend on how centred and powerful it was. If the global gov't had as much power as a nation only over the entire globe, then it wouldn't work. Not for a couple hundred years anyway(barring an unforeseen occurrance(s)). But if it was decentralized enough, it could happen in the next decade or three.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: Those who

rexlunae wrote:
Those who think we will evolve to a new human nature that will support one world government are misusing evolution. We can't predict how or even if human nature will evolve over time with any certainty, and certainly optimism is an invalid basis for trying. But I think the idea is fundamentally bad. Governments do not, as a rule, become more free and less corrupt as they get larger; in fact it seems to me that the opposite occurs. Governments attract people who seek power, and the more powerful the government, the more it will attract power-mongers. My ideal is for governmental power to be held at a very local level, and then those small governments would interact with each other in friendly agreements which would allow for free trade, free movement and employment, intellectual free exchange and cooperation on large projects. Rather than entrusting all our freedoms to an unresponsive monolithic central bureaucracy, so large that it is immune to criticism and able to control everything, we would rely on responsive local self-limited governments to mediate disputes and fulfill the basic purpose of government.

I think there's a bit of a misconception that 1 government would imply an association with how things are currently done.  And I think that's a false assumption.  I don't think it can work based on how it's done.

It's not about evolving human nature, it's about rethinking how the world currently is.  Changing the mindset that we are small seperated communities exploring earth.  But rather 1 set of people exploring the universe.  I don't think it's misplaced optimism to suggest we should work towards eliminating the discrimination and segregation that prevents the world from living in peace.  If the world can truely live in peace (which I think would only happen with the elimination of both religion as a political influence as well as elimination of our current economic model in the world) and share the worlds resources towards common goals we'd be in a far better place than we are.

You can talk about human nature all you want, but I see it as a gradual advancement in social issues (one by one) much like the womans rights, gay rights, and secularist / atheist movements.

 


Mr.Thomas
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hmmmm.... the next decade

Hmmmm.... the next decade or three? imagine that...

 

Is religion the main obstacle to unity anyway?

"Insert witty, thought provoking quote here"


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr.Thomas wrote: Hmmmm....

Mr.Thomas wrote:

Hmmmm.... the next decade or three? imagine that...

 

Is religion the main obstacle to unity anyway?

I don't think it's the main one, but I think it's a neccessary one.

And, to be honest, I'm not sure how to approach the main one.

I see the main one as the current economies of the world.  Eliminating greed, and closing the standard of living gap in the world.  Essentially I'm suggesting that a world government would probably mean socialism.  I also don't have all the answers as to how that would work since there are historically greedy portions of socialism as well.  The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that capitalism won't work as a world economy in a world that would need to be based on equality.

That said, it's hard to unite two sets of people who are both saying the other are doing the devils work.  So it's a starting place.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: Eliminating

Tarpan wrote:
Eliminating greed, and closing the standard of living gap in the world.

This sort of pie-in-the-sky idealism is not going to go anywhere, and it can be a distraction from making real progress. Are you suggesting that we re-engineer all of humanity to lack a fundamental personality trait? Has there ever been a system that successfully eliminates greed? Can we even assume that we would like the results of doing so?

Self-interest is a trait fundamental to the survival of life. We may possess the capacity for altruism, but we also have a need to look after ourselves selfishly, otherwise we would never do anything to help ourselves.

Tarpan wrote:
Essentially I'm suggesting that a world government would probably mean socialism.  I also don't have all the answers as to how that would work since there are historically greedy portions of socialism as well.

Good luck eliminating greed from human nature. Actually, I hope it fails, because it is one of the fundamental aspects of humans, one which cannot be altered without making humans very different, and that may not be good.

I think this kind of pie-in-the-sky idealism without any trace of reality is a barrier to making meaningful progress.

Tarpan wrote:
I see the main one as the current economies of the world. Eliminating greed, and closing the standard of living gap in the world. Essentially I'm suggesting that a world government would probably mean socialism. I also don't have all the answers as to how that would work since there are historically greedy portions of socialism as well.

So you know what the answer is, but you don't know how it would work? How is this a solution? It seems like you expect that socialism is the magic solution that will fix everything, without any understanding of how.

Tarpan wrote:
The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that capitalism won't work as a world economy in a world that would need to be based on equality.

Based on equality? So, what if I don't want to be equal to someone else? "The nail that stands out gets pounded down"? This is one nail that doesn't like being hit on the head.

Sorry if this seems like a bit of a rant, I just see the whole concept of an oppressive world socialism as misguided Star Trek thinking.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Yes, it is

Yes, it is idealism.

There's no question.

I'm also not proposing change.  In fact I can not express enough that I don't know how this is accomplished, nor that it is even possible.

To me, in an ideal world, one person does not eat 2 extra meals in a day while another person dies of starvation.  You may see that as an acceptable reality of the world, but I see that as something that is a shame.

You're suggestion an oppressive world, and I'm not suggesting an oppressive world is the answer.  Which is why I know I don't have the answers.  There are so many problems with talking about ideals that obviously this is not a reality within the confines of our world and our reality.

Equality may not mean everyone gets the same slice of the pie.  But Equality should mean that everyone is given the same opportunities.  Everyone has, at their disposal, their basic needs of life met such as food, a roof, and an education.

Globalization and world peace are not realistic possibilities in our world...eliminating religion is not a possibility in our world...neither is eliminating racism, creating acceptance for gays, creating true equality world wide among the different sexes.

These are all things that have been recently or are not possibilities in our lifetime.  But progress gets made towards it.  Globalization, to me, is not just about a single government.  It's about finding a balance that eliminates the need for wars among people that at the end of the day are ultimatly all part of 1 world-wide community.  About not discriminating against people and groups for trivial reasons.

Socialism, in the form that perhaps it is used in Canada or other more social countries than the US, is perhaps a good starting place.  There's no shortage of evidence that hte US has it wrong.  Though it's also clear that no one has a perfect system.

So yes, I'm talking 100% in ideals and not in reality.  The changes that it will take to do something like that is staggering. Though I do believe that organizations like the UN are positive steps towards trying to find a bit of global unity.  It's going to be neccessary to have some kind of a global entity to help manage things like polution and deal with 'world' issues that affect everyone and need everyones participation.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Mr.Thomas wrote: Hmmmm....

Mr.Thomas wrote:

Hmmmm.... the next decade or three? imagine that...

 

Is religion the main obstacle to unity anyway?

Just time really. The most likely scenario for a first global government would be a merging of the EU, a future similar Asian federation, and a future similar North/South American federation. It wouldn't have a lot of power, probably not much more than the UN does(though you could theoretically say the UN is the first global government I suppose). It's purview would probably be most concerned with extra-terrestrial affairs(colonies and resource aquisition) and global concerns(environment). Locals would be subject to their own national authorities, and a first world government wouldn't have the power to intervene.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: Tarpan

rexlunae wrote:
Tarpan wrote:
Eliminating greed, and closing the standard of living gap in the world.

This sort of pie-in-the-sky idealism is not going to go anywhere, and it can be a distraction from making real progress. Are you suggesting that we re-engineer all of humanity to lack a fundamental personality trait? Has there ever been a system that successfully eliminates greed? Can we even assume that we would like the results of doing so?

Eliminating greed would seem a bit idealistic indeed. But restricting it's capabilities is reasonable enough. Capitalism merely furthers greed.

rexlunae wrote:
Self-interest is a trait fundamental to the survival of life. We may possess the capacity for altruism, but we also have a need to look after ourselves selfishly, otherwise we would never do anything to help ourselves.

Looking after society improves societies ability to look after us, furthering our self interest and survival.

rexlunae wrote:

Tarpan wrote:
I see the main one as the current economies of the world. Eliminating greed, and closing the standard of living gap in the world. Essentially I'm suggesting that a world government would probably mean socialism. I also don't have all the answers as to how that would work since there are historically greedy portions of socialism as well.

So you know what the answer is, but you don't know how it would work? How is this a solution? It seems like you expect that socialism is the magic solution that will fix everything, without any understanding of how.

I have an idea of how it would work. Socialism isn't a magic solution to everything any more than any other thing is. But it is certainly capable of being a path to a richer, healthier, smarter, and happier society.

rexlunae wrote:
Tarpan wrote:
The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that capitalism won't work as a world economy in a world that would need to be based on equality.

Based on equality? So, what if I don't want to be equal to someone else? "The nail that stands out gets pounded down"? This is one nail that doesn't like being hit on the head.

Neither does this one. But how exactly are you better or worse than anyone else? What makes you so special that you deserve special treatment?

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: rexlunae

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Tarpan wrote:
Eliminating greed, and closing the standard of living gap in the world.

This sort of pie-in-the-sky idealism is not going to go anywhere, and it can be a distraction from making real progress. Are you suggesting that we re-engineer all of humanity to lack a fundamental personality trait? Has there ever been a system that successfully eliminates greed? Can we even assume that we would like the results of doing so?

Eliminating greed would seem a bit idealistic indeed. But restricting it's capabilities is reasonable enough.

I agree with you completely, this far.

Vastet wrote:
Capitalism merely furthers greed.

Capitalism, like any economic system, distributes limited resources. It does so based, ideally, on an abstracted exchange system, under which people have an incentive to be more productive.

That's not to say it should be unrestrained or absolute, however, it does a lot more than just promote greed. And, there has never been a system that has successfully eliminated greed. This is because, as I said before, it is fundamental to life, and we probably can't survive completely without it.

Vastet wrote:
Looking after society improves societies ability to look after us, furthering our self interest and survival.

Absolutely. I'm certainly not advocating a purely self-interested system. I am promoting balance between self-interest and common interest. I just think that self-interest is a common socialist whipping boy, and I don't believe it is justified.

Vastet wrote:
I have an idea of how it would work. Socialism isn't a magic solution to everything any more than any other thing is. But it is certainly capable of being a path to a richer, healthier, smarter, and happier society.

How?

Vastet wrote:
Neither does this one. But how exactly are you better or worse than anyone else? What makes you so special that you deserve special treatment?

I'm obviously not looking for special treatment, I'm just looking to be able to generally live my life according to my own means, like everyone else, rather than having wealth that I produce plundered and given to people who didn't earn it. A world government only produces more opportunities for that.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't think we're as far

I don't think we're as far off as you might think.  I'm talking in ideals, but you take baby steps towards things like this.  As you get farther along pushing it even farther becomes easier because people have grown up in a different ideal system where greed isn't as much the focus.

You can simply look at how the US treats it's capitalism vs other countries that still actually look after their poor in a reasonable way.  The US is a shameful example of greed dominating over social responsibility.

/rant on 

For the world to even get an inch closer to even moderatly decent social responsibility world wide the US would have to sacrifice tons.  All the modern countries will, but the US has so many of the worlds resources tied up into a few people that are willing to destroy the world just to retain their possessions.

This kind of a mentality has to change for the world and for our species as a whole to survive in the long-term.  We have survived as long as we have, but with our technologies we are able to destroy things at a faster rate so that we can make bigger cups to hold our over sized drinks and have bigger televisions.

I don't think many people look at it this way, but we are so overly fortunate to have the wealth in modern countries that we do but we should also recognize that we do it at the expense of people not even having clean water to drink.

It's no surprise to me that a large portion of the population in Africa is religious.  They have nothing else to believe in.  Though you look at their supposed equal Christians that are stuffing their faces despite their own bible telling them that they should be looking after the poor instead.

Evangelical Christianity in the US is such a huge industry and is so incredibly hypocritical to the teachings of the bible it's amazing to me that people are successfully brainwashed into believing the tripe that they spew out.

Okay, I forgot my point.

/rant off 

I don't think we need to know what this global government looks like today to know that there are major cultural issues that need to be bypassed before it can truely do anything of use.  And those are the things that I can spend my life focusing on. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: Vastet

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Capitalism merely furthers greed.

Capitalism, like any economic system, distributes limited resources. It does so based, ideally, on an abstracted exchange system, under which people have an incentive to be more productive.

This is an idealistic response. There's nothing within capitalism which promotes healthy living for all. It's the chase of the buck for one, screw everyone else. It's the monarchy of economic systems. Born into it or fluke into it, everyone else is effectively slaves.

rexlunae wrote:

That's not to say it should be unrestrained or absolute, however, it does a lot more than just promote greed. And, there has never been a system that has successfully eliminated greed.

An economic system is incapable of having such an effect. Capitalism is flawed because it promotes greed, not because it's incapable of ending it.

rexlunae wrote:
This is because, as I said before, it is fundamental to life, and we probably can't survive completely without it.

I disagree completely. We can't survive with it.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Looking after society improves societies ability to look after us, furthering our self interest and survival.

Absolutely. I'm certainly not advocating a purely self-interested system.

That's what capitalism is.

rexlunae wrote:
I am promoting balance between self-interest and common interest. I just think that self-interest is a common socialist whipping boy, and I don't believe it is justified.

There is no balance between common and self interest within capitalism. The US is the perfect example of this. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The only counterbalance to this within capitalism is charity of the rich. Which is rarer than plutonium.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
I have an idea of how it would work. Socialism isn't a magic solution to everything any more than any other thing is. But it is certainly capable of being a path to a richer, healthier, smarter, and happier society.

How?

Eliminating homelessness, improving education and health care, bringing the incomes of people to a similar level, etc.

rexlunae wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Neither does this one. But how exactly are you better or worse than anyone else? What makes you so special that you deserve special treatment?

I'm obviously not looking for special treatment, I'm just looking to be able to generally live my life according to my own means, like everyone else, rather than having wealth that I produce plundered and given to people who didn't earn it.

You make the assumption that people won't earn what they make. This is untrue. I am not an advocate for a society that sits on it's ass all day. In order to reap the benefits of society you would have to contribute to society. No contribution, no benefits. Quite simple really.

rexlunae wrote:
A world government only produces more opportunities for that.

How?

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: rexlunae

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Capitalism merely furthers greed.

Capitalism, like any economic system, distributes limited resources. It does so based, ideally, on an abstracted exchange system, under which people have an incentive to be more productive.

This is an idealistic response.

And that's why I said 'ideally', as in how it's supposed to work, and in general how it does work. I was correcting a ridiculous characterization that "Capitalism merely furthers greed," as you put it.

Vastet wrote:
There's nothing within capitalism which promotes healthy living for all. It's the chase of the buck for one, screw everyone else.

I'm not claiming that it is not a self-interested system, nor am I claiming that it is the solution to all our problems.

Vastet wrote:
It's the monarchy of economic systems. Born into it or fluke into it, everyone else is effectively slaves.

Nonsense. In an idealized capitalism, everyone is free to pursue their own ends, and no one is a slave.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
That's not to say it should be unrestrained or absolute, however, it does a lot more than just promote greed. And, there has never been a system that has successfully eliminated greed.

An economic system is incapable of having such an effect.

Then on that we agree. Tarpan said that socialism would do just that, and I was objecting to his comment. If you are not making the same claim, I do not see the need to discuss it with you, seeing as on this point, we already agree.

Vastet wrote:
Capitalism is flawed because it promotes greed, not because it's incapable of ending it.

There's nothing wrong with greed, properly restrained by law and society. It's a basic part of human nature.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
This is because, as I said before, it is fundamental to life, and we probably can't survive completely without it.

I disagree completely. We can't survive with it.

That is obviously false. We have greed. We are surviving. We can survive with greed.

However, as I have said, that greed needs to be balanced by social, moral, and legal pressure.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Looking after society improves societies ability to look after us, furthering our self interest and survival.

Absolutely. I'm certainly not advocating a purely self-interested system.

That's what capitalism is.

Capitalism operates under the theory that as you help yourself, you help society as a whole as well. You can't really call that purely self-interested.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
I am promoting balance between self-interest and common interest. I just think that self-interest is a common socialist whipping boy, and I don't believe it is justified.

There is no balance between common and self interest within capitalism.

And no balance with pure socialism. Read back. When did I ever advocate pure capitalism? The first person to mention capitalism in the thread was tarpan, and the second was you. I am arguing against the idea advanced by several people here that worldwide socialism will magically solve all the world's problems, especially without an explanation of how it would do so.

Vastet wrote:
The US is the perfect example of this. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The only counterbalance to this within capitalism is charity of the rich. Which is rarer than plutonium.

Which is why there are no social programs in the US for the homeless and impoverished. Oh, wait, there are.

I'll agree that there are social and economic problems in the US, but I don't see where socialism is the answer.

Vastet wrote:
Eliminating homelessness, improving education and health care, bringing the incomes of people to a similar level, etc.

The US has public homeless shelters, public aide for low-income families, educational subsidies for the low-income, affordable public schools (free for those who can't pay at all), and countless private charities, and all without becoming a completely socialist society. So what would a complete socialism be able to do that we have failed to do and cannot do without more socialism?

We definitely have some economic and social problems, but it's not as if there are loads of people dieing on our streets for lack of home and health. And many of the problems are more complex than could be fixed by just economic changes.

If you want to suggest that we often have our priorities wrong, I won't disagree. But to imply that we don't even try is just untrue.

Vastet wrote:
You make the assumption that people won't earn what they make. This is untrue. I am not an advocate for a society that sits on it's ass all day. In order to reap the benefits of society you would have to contribute to society. No contribution, no benefits. Quite simple really.

Sounds like capitalism to me. If a person were to simply refuse to work, what would happen to them in your idealized system? Would they not potentially become homeless? How can you claim to be able to eliminate homelessness when you allow such a thing to occur?

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
A world government only produces more opportunities for that.
How?

The tyranny of the majority. The larger the majority, the more easily minority groups are marginalized.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: Vastet

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Capitalism merely furthers greed.

Capitalism, like any economic system, distributes limited resources. It does so based, ideally, on an abstracted exchange system, under which people have an incentive to be more productive.

This is an idealistic response.

And that's why I said 'ideally', as in how it's supposed to work, and in general how it does work. I was correcting a ridiculous characterization that "Capitalism merely furthers greed," as you put it.

It also means it doesn't counter anything I said. Idealism is the attack you made on socialism in the first place. Capitalism is subject to it as well.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
It's the monarchy of economic systems. Born into it or fluke into it, everyone else is effectively slaves.

Nonsense. In an idealized capitalism, everyone is free to pursue their own ends, and no one is a slave.

Impossible. Capitalism as merely an economy cannot sustain freedom. It requires that in order to obtain an education to make money, you must have money to gain the education. Therefore in order to make good money with a good job you have to have good money in the first place. The poor are uneducated and underpaid, incapable of rising out of this position without luck, or assistance(which costs money). Democracy attempts to hold it in check as much as it can, but then it becomes flawed in the process as well, since money is power. Democracy with socialism is a perfect match however.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
That's not to say it should be unrestrained or absolute, however, it does a lot more than just promote greed. And, there has never been a system that has successfully eliminated greed.

An economic system is incapable of having such an effect.

Then on that we agree. Tarpan said that socialism would do just that, and I was objecting to his comment. If you are not making the same claim, I do not see the need to discuss it with you, seeing as on this point, we already agree.

We disagree on socialism and capitalism however. I was not responding in objection to that portion of your response.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Capitalism is flawed because it promotes greed, not because it's incapable of ending it.

There's nothing wrong with greed, properly restrained by law and society. It's a basic part of human nature.

A capitalist society does not restrain greed, it promotes it. A socialist country restrains greed, but doesn't necessarily try to eliminate it. Greed might not necessarily be a bad thing in and of itself, but it's negative impacts are not mitigated through a system that promotes greed.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
This is because, as I said before, it is fundamental to life, and we probably can't survive completely without it.

I disagree completely. We can't survive with it.

That is obviously false. We have greed. We are surviving. We can survive with greed.

I didn't mean we can't survive with greed. I meant we can't survive with capitalism. And I didn't intend to imply that we can't survive with it for a time, obviously we can. It won't last though. History shows that the minority subjugating the majority results in the extinction of the minority. Each and every time.

rexlunae wrote:
However, as I have said, that greed needs to be balanced by social, moral, and legal pressure.

Democracy and socialism can achieve this where democracy and capitalism cannot.

rexlunae wrote:
Capitalism operates under the theory that as you help yourself, you help society as a whole as well. You can't really call that purely self-interested.

Capitalism is incapable of sustaining that theory. It is illogical to assume that the promotion of the self equals the promotion of society. It doesn't follow. The reverse does.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
I am promoting balance between self-interest and common interest. I just think that self-interest is a common socialist whipping boy, and I don't believe it is justified.

There is no balance between common and self interest within capitalism.

And no balance with pure socialism.

On the contrary.

rexlunae wrote:
Read back. When did I ever advocate pure capitalism?

When did I accuse you of doing so?

rexlunae wrote:
The first person to mention capitalism in the thread was tarpan, and the second was you. I am arguing against the idea advanced by several people here that worldwide socialism will magically solve all the world's problems, especially without an explanation of how it would do so.

You haven't given any reasons why it can't, or why capitalism is superior. You are as guilty of unbacked assertions as anyone.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
The US is the perfect example of this. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The only counterbalance to this within capitalism is charity of the rich. Which is rarer than plutonium.

Which is why there are no social programs in the US for the homeless and impoverished. Oh, wait, there are.

And they are so successful. Oh wait, they aren't. And they're available to everyone. Oh wait, they aren't.

I also point out that is democracy attempting to bridge the gap. It's not capitalism providing those programs, it's democracy.

rexlunae wrote:
I'll agree that there are social and economic problems in the US, but I don't see where socialism is the answer.

I don't see where it isn't an answer. I just don't know how to apply it morally under the circumstances. Otherwise I'd be out doing so right now.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Eliminating homelessness, improving education and health care, bringing the incomes of people to a similar level, etc.

The US has public homeless shelters, public aide for low-income families, educational subsidies for the low-income, affordable public schools (free for those who can't pay at all), and countless private charities, and all without becoming a completely socialist society.

All of these are democratic, not capitalist. A socialist democracy would improve their efficiency immeasurably. I also note that academics are heavily restricted in capitalist nations. It all ends at grade 12(generalism), which is merely a bare minimum requirement for the general workforce. Grade 12 alone won't get you $200,000 a year. Further education is beyond the reach of those who don't have it. This is an unacceptable and fundamental flaw. This also has a side effect of making it easier to promote religion, which is another reason I'm against it.

rexlunae wrote:
So what would a complete socialism be able to do that we have failed to do and cannot do without more socialism?

Doing it better. Actually achieving goals instead of making words at them. Ending homelessness. Universal healthcare. Universal education. A capitalism that was restricted enough by democratic rule could perhaps achieve these things, but the standard of capitalism is that it is more powerful than the government. It runs the government. If not for the constitution, I think the US would have fractured apart years ago.

rexlunae wrote:
We definitely have some economic and social problems, but it's not as if there are loads of people dieing on our streets for lack of home and health.

Yes there are. That's the problem. There even is in Canada, and we're far better off than the US in that regard.

rexlunae wrote:
And many of the problems are more complex than could be fixed by just economic changes.

Those complexities mostly arise from the economic process in the first place.

rexlunae wrote:
If you want to suggest that we often have our priorities wrong, I won't disagree. But to imply that we don't even try is just untrue.

I didn't intend to imply that people aren't trying to make things work, or make them work better. I just think they're going about it the wrong way.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
You make the assumption that people won't earn what they make. This is untrue. I am not an advocate for a society that sits on it's ass all day. In order to reap the benefits of society you would have to contribute to society. No contribution, no benefits. Quite simple really.

Sounds like capitalism to me. If a person were to simply refuse to work, what would happen to them in your idealized system? Would they not potentially become homeless? How can you claim to be able to eliminate homelessness when you allow such a thing to occur?

If someone chooses not to contribute, then they have no right to expect assistance from that which they refuse to contribute to. Homelessness in capitalist societies can occur from a single mistep or error. It can even occur through no fault of the individual at all, but through the spite of another or unexpected hardships. Homelessness in a socialist society would require the individual to WANT to be homeless in the first place, hence there's no problem.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
A world government only produces more opportunities for that.
How?

The tyranny of the majority. The larger the majority, the more easily minority groups are marginalized.

That would apply equally to capitalism. Hence, not a valid argument against socialism.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: rexlunae

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
And that's why I said 'ideally', as in how it's supposed to work, and in general how it does work. I was correcting a ridiculous characterization that "Capitalism merely furthers greed," as you put it.

It also means it doesn't counter anything I said. Idealism is the attack you made on socialism in the first place. Capitalism is subject to it as well.

The difference is that I have not offered capitalism as an answer to any problem. I am only explaining how it works to you because you seem to want to mis-characterize it, nothing more. Furthermore it wasn't the idealism itself that I was objecting to; idealism is how any such system starts out; it was really the pie-in-the-sky, the notion that it would solve the world's problems without an explanation of how it would do so. It's like people thought we would just wave a magic socialism wand over the world and everything would be better, and I was looking for an explanation as to how exactly that would occur.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Nonsense. In an idealized capitalism, everyone is free to pursue their own ends, and no one is a slave.

Impossible. Capitalism as merely an economy cannot sustain freedom.

True, it does presuppose a political system that can guarantee some basic rights. So what? I'm not proposing anarchy. There's no reason that an economic system must be independent of politics, and in fact I don't see how it could be.

Vastet wrote:
Democracy attempts to hold it in check as much as it can, but then it becomes flawed in the process as well, since money is power. Democracy with socialism is a perfect match however.

Any government can have social programs, democratic or not. And money may be power, but it seems to me that the real problem is the power itself. Many of the people who seek power are exactly the types of people we don't want to have it. The money is just one mechanism that exposes this underlying problem, and socialism would have the same sorts of problems given the same political system. It seems to me that real solution is to engineer governments to be less susceptible to power-mongers (like Bush & Friends). I have some ideas on how to do that, but I don't think they relate to the current conversation.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Capitalism is flawed because it promotes greed, not because it's incapable of ending it.

There's nothing wrong with greed, properly restrained by law and society. It's a basic part of human nature.

A capitalist society does not restrain greed, it promotes it.

And that's why we need governments, regardless of economic system. Once again Please read and understand: I am not advocating unrestrained capitalism.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
This is because, as I said before, it is fundamental to life, and we probably can't survive completely without it.

I disagree completely. We can't survive with it.

That is obviously false. We have greed. We are surviving. We can survive with greed.

I didn't mean we can't survive with greed. I meant we can't survive with capitalism.

Ok, but, that's not what you said. Since you seem to have equated greed with capitalism, I wonder what the practical difference is in your mind. In any case, this would need to be proven, since we have been surviving with capitalism for quite some time now. And before you cite global warming as an example, I would point to China, which within the next two years is projected to surpass the US in CO2 emission, and it would be hard to call China an unrestrained capitalism.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
However, as I have said, that greed needs to be balanced by social, moral, and legal pressure.

Democracy and socialism can achieve this where democracy and capitalism cannot.

How? What advantage does socialism impart?

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Capitalism operates under the theory that as you help yourself, you help society as a whole as well. You can't really call that purely self-interested.

Capitalism is incapable of sustaining that theory. It is illogical to assume that the promotion of the self equals the promotion of society. It doesn't follow. The reverse does.

I go to work, and get paid (benefit to me) to help produce a product used by millions of people (benefit to society). See, it works.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
I am promoting balance between self-interest and common interest. I just think that self-interest is a common socialist whipping boy, and I don't believe it is justified.

There is no balance between common and self interest within capitalism.

Could you please let me define my own case, rather than trying to force me to defend anarchist capitalism? Please?

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Read back. When did I ever advocate pure capitalism?

When did I accuse you of doing so?

Essentially every response that you have made to me has been an attempt to get me to defend some sort of anarchist capitalism.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
The first person to mention capitalism in the thread was tarpan, and the second was you. I am arguing against the idea advanced by several people here that worldwide socialism will magically solve all the world's problems, especially without an explanation of how it would do so.

You haven't given any reasons why it can't, or why capitalism is superior.

I think we all know the familiar old meme: The burden of proof is on the claimant.

I am asking for the people making the argument that worldwide socialism will solve all sorts of problems to specify how that is supposed to happen. I'm not arguing an alternative. I am just asking for your argument to be stated. The only independent positive position I have taken in this thread is in favor of local autonomy, and you and I haven't even discussed that.

Vastet wrote:
I also point out that is democracy attempting to bridge the gap. It's not capitalism providing those programs, it's democracy.

How come you're allowed to partner socialism with democracy to solve problems, but you insist on trying to make me argue a purely capitalist system with no government?

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
I'll agree that there are social and economic problems in the US, but I don't see where socialism is the answer.

I don't see where it isn't an answer.

And the burden of proof is on the claimant....

Vastet wrote:
I just don't know how to apply it morally under the circumstances. Otherwise I'd be out doing so right now.

It's fine if you don't know, just admit it and we can move on. I just want to know why the people who are advocating world socialism are doing so.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Eliminating homelessness, improving education and health care, bringing the incomes of people to a similar level, etc.

The US has public homeless shelters, public aide for low-income families, educational subsidies for the low-income, affordable public schools (free for those who can't pay at all), and countless private charities, and all without becoming a completely socialist society.

All of these are democratic, not capitalist.

The two aren't mutually exclusive you know.

Vastet wrote:
A socialist democracy would improve their efficiency immeasurably. I also note that academics are heavily restricted in capitalist nations. It all ends at grade 12(generalism), which is merely a bare minimum requirement for the general workforce. Grade 12 alone won't get you $200,000 a year.

Well, in the US, which you gave as a perfect example earlier, there are grants that almost anyone with low income can get to go to college which cover almost all expenses, as long as they don't already have a 4-year degree. I know lots of people who went to school on these grants. I even know a single mother who is going to school with these grants and paying rent with city assistance. They may not pay for expensive private schools, but they'll get you the education you need to get paid the big bucks.

Is it socialism? Yes. Do I have a big problem with it? No. Does that make the US a socialist nation? Not really. It's just kinda somewhere in the middle.

Vastet wrote:
Further education is beyond the reach of those who don't have it. This is an unacceptable and fundamental flaw. This also has a side effect of making it easier to promote religion, which is another reason I'm against it.

Well, I agree with you there. Education is a great antidote for religion.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
So what would a complete socialism be able to do that we have failed to do and cannot do without more socialism?

Doing it better. Actually achieving goals instead of making words at them. Ending homelessness. Universal healthcare. Universal education. A capitalism that was restricted enough by democratic rule could perhaps achieve these things, but the standard of capitalism is that it is more powerful than the government.

No government is immune from corruption. Money is one mechanism, but power itself is certainly enough.

Vastet wrote:
It runs the government. If not for the constitution, I think the US would have fractured apart years ago.

If only. I'd love to see the US broken up, I think it's too big for the amount of power it wields.
....
Waiting to be tarred and feathered for that comment...
....

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
We definitely have some economic and social problems, but it's not as if there are loads of people dieing on our streets for lack of home and health.

Yes there are. That's the problem. There even is in Canada, and we're far better off than the US in that regard.

In fact, I believe I heard that the US was worst in the world, followed directly by Canada. But I'd never be able to locate my source on that. My point is, it's not such a problem that it's all over the place. The numbers are vastly smaller than the number of people dieing of heart disease and cancer.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
And many of the problems are more complex than could be fixed by just economic changes.

Those complexities mostly arise from the economic process in the first place.

There are some racial problems in some areas that we've never fully sorted out. That's a social problem first, and leads to an economic problem. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
You make the assumption that people won't earn what they make. This is untrue. I am not an advocate for a society that sits on it's ass all day. In order to reap the benefits of society you would have to contribute to society. No contribution, no benefits. Quite simple really.

Sounds like capitalism to me. If a person were to simply refuse to work, what would happen to them in your idealized system? Would they not potentially become homeless? How can you claim to be able to eliminate homelessness when you allow such a thing to occur?

If someone chooses not to contribute, then they have no right to expect assistance from that which they refuse to contribute to. Homelessness in capitalist societies can occur from a single mistep or error.

Perhaps in rare cases. I don't know, I don't have any data on how common this is, do you?

Vastet wrote:
It can even occur through no fault of the individual at all, but through the spite of another or unexpected hardships. Homelessness in a socialist society would require the individual to WANT to be homeless in the first place, hence there's no problem.

So what motivates the individual to do anything?

Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
A world government only produces more opportunities for that.
How?

The tyranny of the majority. The larger the majority, the more easily minority groups are marginalized.

That would apply equally to capitalism. Hence, not a valid argument against socialism.

That's an argument against a world government, not socialism. You'll notice that the only standalone positive position I've taken in this thread is that autonomy should be local. If the Swedes and Norwegians like their socialism, let them have it (even if it does mean that religion continues to be sponsored by the state), and let other areas choose their economic systems for themselves as well. Open the economies to trade, free movement and employment, and intellectual exchange, and you've got the makings of prosperity without the tyranny of the (vast) majority.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm not so much advocating

I'm not so much advocating socialsm as much as suggesting that any form of really good social system is going to be a lot closer to socialism than what is currently be used in the states.  I'm also not suggesting that this is done by a magic wand, but rather over generations upon generations of slowly changing ideals and social standards.

Long-term, I would actually say that I am rather fond of the idea of no economic system at all. Realistic? Not in our society, but I'm still fond of the idealistic view.

But I would like to talk about motives.

What would motivate people in a society that does not have economics? I would suggest that this isn't that far from a dogmatic mentality. Persuit of money and persuit of heaven it's all persuit of selfish endeavours. I admit that money is a great motivator as are possessions.

But the vast majority of people do not end up working or bein able to focus their attention on their passions. What if all people were provided the opportunity to persue their passions? Wouldn't we actually end up with a far more advanced society? One where we had more experts in just about every field rather than so many people waiting on tables despite the capability and lack of opportunity for them to become a chemist?

Our world is so driven by economy it's near impossible to imagine such a world or relate to it. And I know your reaction may be to suggest that it can't happen because of reason x,y,z but I would also suggest that it's hard to relate to something that has so little in common with our current world.

As cliche or lame as it might seem, I think John Lennon had the ideals for humanity right.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: The

rexlunae wrote:

The difference is that I have not offered capitalism as an answer to any problem. I am only explaining how it works to you because you seem to want to mis-characterize it, nothing more.

I know very well how capitalism works, and I'm not mischaracterizing anything.

rexlunae wrote:

Furthermore it wasn't the idealism itself that I was objecting to; idealism is how any such system starts out; it was really the pie-in-the-sky, the notion that it would solve the world's problems without an explanation of how it would do so. It's like people thought we would just wave a magic socialism wand over the world and everything would be better, and I was looking for an explanation as to how exactly that would occur.

Obviously it wouldn't. The institution of any new economic or social policy ends up in a generation or two of difficulties at least. Once that period is over however, things can run smoothly. And better than they did before. France is a perfect example of such a change, though it was social instead of economic.

rexlunae wrote:
True, it does presuppose a political system that can guarantee some basic rights. So what? I'm not proposing anarchy. There's no reason that an economic system must be independent of politics, and in fact I don't see how it could be.

Me either, and I have nothing against the democratic process. I just see it working a lot better with a socialist economy than a capitalist one.

rexlunae wrote:
Any government can have social programs, democratic or not. And money may be power, but it seems to me that the real problem is the power itself. Many of the people who seek power are exactly the types of people we don't want to have it. The money is just one mechanism that exposes this underlying problem, and socialism would have the same sorts of problems given the same political system.

Not if democracy were modified to work with socialism instead of capitalism, and was decentralized. Much of the beaurocracy could be eliminated. All positions of power would be figurative, not material. The people would have the voice, not the man or woman.

rexlunae wrote:
It seems to me that real solution is to engineer governments to be less susceptible to power-mongers (like Bush & Friends). I have some ideas on how to do that, but I don't think they relate to the current conversation.

I think eliminating positions of personal power altogether is the ideal solution, which is what would happen in what I see a social democracy accomplishing.

rexlunae wrote:
And that's why we need governments, regardless of economic system. Once again Please read and understand: I am not advocating unrestrained capitalism.

I know, but a government is restrained in it's restraining of capitalism. All the rich need to do in order to maintain their riches is buy off those in power. Or use their funds to become those in power. When was the last time a middle class guy ran for office? Lower class? This wouldn't be an issue in a socialist democracy.

rexlunae wrote:

Ok, but, that's not what you said.

Granted. My splitting of your paragraph allowed me to infer you were talking about capitalism, not greed, in that sub-section. It's my error, and I apologize.

rexlunae wrote:
Since you seem to have equated greed with capitalism, I wonder what the practical difference is in your mind.

I do not do this, but I can understand how you might think I do due to my poor response.

rexlunae wrote:
How? What advantage does socialism impart?

No economic pressure on government by individuals or organizations wielding more authority than the common man or woman.

rexlunae wrote:
I go to work, and get paid (benefit to me) to help produce a product used by millions of people (benefit to society). See, it works.

You go to work, produce a product, and get paid a fraction of the value of the product. People 4 or 5 levels above you make 10 times as much money and contribute substantially less. With socialism, work value gives more benefits instead of postition value giving more benefits.

rexlunae wrote:
Could you please let me define my own case, rather than trying to force me to defend anarchist capitalism? Please?

That's not my intention. I'm talking about western society as it is, not as it would be as an anarchist society.

rexlunae wrote:
Essentially every response that you have made to me has been an attempt to get me to defend some sort of anarchist capitalism.

I'm attacking capitalism itself, not anarchy. Though I'd do that just as surely, since it tends to use capitalism.

rexlunae wrote:

I am asking for the people making the argument that worldwide socialism will solve all sorts of problems to specify how that is supposed to happen.

That sounds like a book. I honestly don't have that much time. I've had to spread this response over two shifts already. Sticking out tongue
Most of the improvements are self evident however, explained in the definition of the term socialism. A look at Cuba can show how good a health care and education system can be with a socialist economy. If you have any specific questions I can do my best to answer them, but I can't be expected to lay out an entire global economic policy on a forum.

rexlunae wrote:
I'm not arguing an alternative. I am just asking for your argument to be stated. The only independent positive position I have taken in this thread is in favor of local autonomy, and you and I haven't even discussed that.

Vastet wrote:
I also point out that is democracy attempting to bridge the gap. It's not capitalism providing those programs, it's democracy.

How come you're allowed to partner socialism with democracy to solve problems, but you insist on trying to make me argue a purely capitalist system with no government?

I'm not. I'm showing you how the good things you point to have nothing to do with capitalism, and how they could be more effective and efficient under socialism.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
I'll agree that there are social and economic problems in the US, but I don't see where socialism is the answer.

I don't see where it isn't an answer.

And the burden of proof is on the claimant....

My claim is merely a counter claim, made with equal vagueness to the original.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
I just don't know how to apply it morally under the circumstances. Otherwise I'd be out doing so right now.

It's fine if you don't know, just admit it and we can move on.

I don't know how to apply it morally. THat doesn't mean I don't know how to do it at all, or that I don't know how it would work if applied.

rexlunae wrote:
I just want to know why the people who are advocating world socialism are doing so.

World socialism would have the same benefits as local socialism, as long as it was decentralized enough.

rexlunae wrote:
The two aren't mutually exclusive you know.

Never said they weren't.

rexlunae wrote:

Well, in the US, which you gave as a perfect example earlier, there are grants that almost anyone with low income can get to go to college which cover almost all expenses, as long as they don't already have a 4-year degree. I know lots of people who went to school on these grants. I even know a single mother who is going to school with these grants and paying rent with city assistance. They may not pay for expensive private schools, but they'll get you the education you need to get paid the big bucks.

Grants aren't available to everyone. Nor are they always easy to get.

rexlunae wrote:
No government is immune from corruption. Money is one mechanism, but power itself is certainly enough.

Which is why you remove personal power. If an elected representative is only a representative than they have no power themselves. In our societies they make a campaign and are elected upon it, then further that campaign whether flawed or not. In a socialist democracy they'd merely be appointed officials doing the demands of the people. They wouldn't have the power to make huge decisions without consulting the public. As it should be.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
It runs the government. If not for the constitution, I think the US would have fractured apart years ago.

If only. I'd love to see the US broken up, I think it's too big for the amount of power it wields.
....
Waiting to be tarred and feathered for that comment...
....

Me too. Britain, China, and Russia also.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
We definitely have some economic and social problems, but it's not as if there are loads of people dieing on our streets for lack of home and health.

Yes there are. That's the problem. There even is in Canada, and we're far better off than the US in that regard.

In fact, I believe I heard that the US was worst in the world, followed directly by Canada. But I'd never be able to locate my source on that. My point is, it's not such a problem that it's all over the place. The numbers are vastly smaller than the number of people dieing of heart disease and cancer.

When cities start making policy on getting homeless people off the street(via police, not help), it's all over the place.
The rest is more problems that could be solved faster in socialism. Instead of looking for symptom maskers or treatments, pharmaceuticals would search for cures. Instead of charging $15,000 for a 1 mg pill, it would be available free to those who needed it. The researchers wouldn't lose anything as they are financed by the people in the first place.

rexlunae wrote:
Vastet wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
And many of the problems are more complex than could be fixed by just economic changes.

Those complexities mostly arise from the economic process in the first place.

There are some racial problems in some areas that we've never fully sorted out. That's a social problem first, and leads to an economic problem. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Racism is a problem largely based in a lack of education, which would be better under socialism. It wouldn't necessarily fix the problem, but it would likely relieve it.

rexlunae wrote:
Perhaps in rare cases. I don't know, I don't have any data on how common this is, do you?

No, but I know it happens. I've spoken to people it happened to. That it happens is enough.

rexlunae wrote:

So what motivates the individual to do anything?

The same thing that motivates in a capitalist society: survival and enjoyment of living. Despite the claims of the average capitalist supporter, socialism does not remove motivation to work.

rexlunae wrote:
That's an argument against a world government, not socialism. You'll notice that the only standalone positive position I've taken in this thread is that autonomy should be local.

That is a position I agree on. I believe a government should be decentralized. I don't think people in Texas should be able to decide what goes on in Moscow, for example. But there's no reason that Texas and Moscow shouldn't work together on a global issue like land mines or pollution.

rexlunae wrote:
If the Swedes and Norwegians like their socialism, let them have it (even if it does mean that religion continues to be sponsored by the state), and let other areas choose their economic systems for themselves as well. Open the economies to trade, free movement and employment, and intellectual exchange, and you've got the makings of prosperity without the tyranny of the (vast) majority.

You can have free movement and employment and intellectual exchange in a socialist economy. Trade wouldn't necessarily be an issue in such a society.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.