TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hugo...doing it again.
Pages (21): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Personally, I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt.

sure, of course you would. what could be the harm in that?

f**k it. our freedoms are safe.

As for Chavez...

The jury's still out for me. I can pick holes in most everything I read about him in the press which suggests he is no way as bad as he is made out to be. If the prejudiced view of socialism that Firestarter has is prevailant in American and their media and government, then I would suggest that is where most of the hatred stems from - ideological differences, not necessarily facts on the gound.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley As for Chavez... The jury's still out for me. I can pick holes in most everything I read about him in the press which suggests he is no way as bad as he is made out to be. If the prejudiced view of socialism that Firestarter has is prevailant in American and their media and government, then I would suggest that is where most of the hatred stems from - ideological differences, not necessarily facts on the gound.

the guy's about to make himself the King of Venezuela.

i ask you. where is the nuance in that?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the guy's about to make himself the King of Venezuela. i ask you. where is the nuance in that?

No that's what your government/media has told you to think of Chavez's proposal to change the constitution. When in actual fact, what he is proposing is practiced by a great deal of countries around the world, many of which are far less authoritarian than America...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley No that's what your government/media has told you to think of Chavez's proposal to change the constitution. When in actual fact, what he is proposing is practiced by a great deal of countries around the world, many of which are far less authoritarian than America...

what? so he's not going to make himself the King of Venezuela, or president for life, whatever. pick a term.

so he's not drafted ammendments that diminish the powers of the elected Governors and Mayors of Venezuela?

i could sit here all night and link news articles from countries all over the world, incuding yours, making the same critiques my "government/media" is "telling me to think". so is this another global conspiracy trumped up by "The Man"?

...and who are these so-called great deal of countries outside the Dark Continent you are refering to?

i want to know who's living a more free life than me so i can move there and tell everbody how oppressed some guy in the UK thinks i am.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what? so he's not going to make himself the King of Venezuela, or president for life, whatever. pick a term.

He has to win elections

quote:

so he's not drafted ammendments that diminish the powers of the elected Governors and Mayors of Venezuela?

No idea. If he did how would that be different to the process the American presidency has taken since its inception?

quote:

i could sit here all night and link news articles from countries all over the world, incuding yours, making the same critiques my "government/media" is "telling me to think". so is this another global conspiracy trumped up by "The Man"?

You could, and I'm sure I'd be able to find holes in them like I have most articles I've seen so far

quote:

...and who are these so-called great deal of countries outside the Dark Continent you are refering to?

The UK for a start. Any country where the leader can stand for an unlimited amount of elections. Like I said, its better than limits as these leaders are constantly trying to please their publics and have to think long term - the American model promotes short-termness and a lack of interest in what the public wants

quote:

i want to know who's living a more free life than me so i can move there and tell everbody how oppressed some guy in the UK thinks i am.

Everyone in Europe?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Well then, you might want to answer my prior question to Capitalizt. How does that pregnant girl learn from her harsh expirience?

Is it not human nature for parents to want a better life for their children than they had for themselves? If the woman is even a SLIGHTLY competent mother, she will be determined not to let her child make the same mistakes she did, by instilling the proper values in the child growing up that will lead him/her down a different path...towards a responsible life.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Is it not human nature for parents to want a better life for their children than they had for themselves? If the woman is even a SLIGHTLY competent mother, she will be determined not to let her child make the same mistakes she did, by instilling the proper values in the child growing up that will lead him/her down a different path...towards a responsible life.

But capitalism requires a large proportion of people to remain in the lowest bracket of society - what is your answer to that?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But capitalism requires a large proportion of people to remain in the lowest bracket of society - what is your answer to that?

I beg to differ. That is not a requirement of capitalism.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But capitalism requires a large proportion of people to remain in the lowest bracket of society - what is your answer to that?

Nonsense. It does not "require" anything. Capitalism is nothing more than freedom from force.

The capitalist system requires a certain proportion of the population to do the jobs at the bottom of society, otherwise it would not be able to opporate. You seem to suggest that everyone can achieve a good job/education but that is not true. Our societies are pyramid shaped because there is not enough high jobs for everyone to do, not only that, it is a requirement that there are enough people doing the low paid jobs.

Take MacDonalds for example. How could that company operate if it had 1000s of managers but no burger flippers?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But capitalism requires a large proportion of people to remain in the lowest bracket of society - what is your answer to that?

Thats a focked up question cause neither side of your's or his point can claim that it does not cause that "bracket"..

That's life, no one gets rewarded for being ordinary, doing an ordinary job and if the majority of people actually spent the same amount of energy and dedication they normally spend being lazy, ignorant, shirking, putting nothing back into their community and getting themselves into debt rather than earning what they want.
Instead if they actually went out of their way to set down clear life goals of what they want and working towards it, then a great many of societies ills wouldn't need the huge amount of charity and tolerance we have for life's losers that can't be bothered.

I mean by your arse backwards logic that capitalism (or rather, democracy, capitalism isn't a political party) has people at the bottom because its supposed to work that way (why?), then socialism must also have everyone at the bottom because there's nothing really to gain by doing anything above a subsistence level.
Gee, that'd be just dandy wouldn't it... everyone's equally in the crap regardless of how well or poorly they run their lives, but hey, you're the smart one with 2 pol-sci degrees so you must know what you're talking about and I'm just a dumb high school dropkick.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The capitalist system requires a certain proportion of the population to do the jobs at the bottom of society, otherwise it would not be able to opporate. You seem to suggest that everyone can achieve a good job/education but that is not true. Our societies are pyramid shaped because there is not enough high jobs for everyone to do, not only that, it is a requirement that there are enough people doing the low paid jobs. Take MacDonalds for example. How could that company operate if it had 1000s of managers but no burger flippers?

Well you said one thing correct smiley..."Our societies are pyramid-shaped". If you are referring "our" as in...the human race...then YES. Most people in the world aren't going to have the talent of Albert Einstein/Bill Gates, but this is not the fault of any system or any person (except God perhaps)

The fact that everyone can't be on "top" can hardly be used as a criticism of capitalism. It's closer to a law of physics.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Thats a focked up question cause neither side of your's or his point can claim that it does not cause that "bracket"..

If I were arguing from a communist position you'd be correct to say that, but I'm not. Capitalist is, however, arguing from a pure capitalist (libertarian) position.

My point is that elements of socislism are needed to offset the side effects capitalism has on a society. Because the capitalist system needs those people to remain in the bottom bracket (or the "lazy, ignorant, shirking" as certain members of this forum would describe them) in order to opperate, then there needs to be some kind of safety net in society to stop it falling apart. Free health care, social security, different levels of taxation etc, all help the poor (which there will always be). Without these policies, society would just fall apart because those in the bottom bracket would not stand for it and there'd just be anarchy

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith That's life, no one gets rewarded for being ordinary, doing an ordinary job and if the majority of people actually spent the same amount of energy and dedication they normally spend being lazy, ignorant, shirking, putting nothing back into their community and getting themselves into debt rather than earning what they want. Instead if they actually went out of their way to set down clear life goals of what they want and working towards it, then a great many of societies ills wouldn't need the huge amount of charity and tolerance we have for life's losers that can't be bothered.

Been reading the Daily Mail again eh?!

quote:

I mean by your arse backwards logic that capitalism (or rather, democracy, capitalism isn't a political party) has people at the bottom because its supposed to work that way (why?), then socialism must also have everyone at the bottom because there's nothing really to gain by doing anything above a subsistence level.

But I'm not arguing from a communist position. I believe the best kind of economic system is Keynesian. And don't fall into the trap of equating "capitalism" with "democracy" because the two are not only mutually exclusive, they are contradict each other

quote:

Gee, that'd be just dandy wouldn't it... everyone's equally in the crap regardless of how well or poorly they run their lives, but hey, you're the smart one with 2 pol-sci degrees so you must know what you're talking about and I'm just a dumb high school dropkick.

Erm, riiiiiight...not sure why you said that but oh well

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Well you said one thing correct smiley..."Our societies are pyramid-shaped". If you are referring "our" as in...the human race...then YES. Most people in the world aren't going to have the talent of Albert Einstein/Bill Gates, but this is not the fault of any system or any person (except God perhaps) The fact that everyone can't be on "top" can hardly be used as a criticism of capitalism. It's closer to a law of physics.

It can when you offer no security to those at the bottom. If, for whatever reason, there needs to be a huge proportion of people in the bottom bracket of society, then they need the support of the state otherwise society collapses - and that's not a good thing for you at the top...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley and that's not a good thing for you at the top...

I like how you assume I'm at the top

I actually don't make much $$. You'd probably consider me one of those poor folks who needs your help.

I live 17,000km away, haven't lived in the UK for close to 15 years and don't subscribe to any of the local rags over there or read them on the internet, so I really don't care what your tabloid press says. What I dislike is that people who have no idea outside of their own country making these wonderful assumptions that nationalisation of private property is ever a good thing when they've never seen the repercussions of such an activity by a government and it's something I feel very strongly about.

No, they bounce out of their schooling, see the 'easy' way for everyone to be happy by simply levelling the infrastructure to the point where you've got the government running everything.
It simply does not work.
It never works!
The only people who lose out in the end are still those down on the lower rungs of society anyway and this is being done by a guy who couldn't get into power legitimately in the first place and tried to do it by a military coup! Everything points to this from histories examples alone that once prosperous or at least stable countries end up being turned into nothing more than barren holes overnight.

I've got a lot of time for people who life's dealt them a bad hand and need help, but the vast majority of people who end up on that bottom rung of the economic ladder are there either just passing through gaining employment experience, making ends meet or there because that's their lot in life. It's always been like this, it's not always fair but it doesn't matter what type of government is in charge, there's always someone at the bottom.
We don't pick them up and stick them in charge of anything important 'just because' they're human beings because they simply cannot do anything more complicated. You can't blame 'Capitalism' for everything, the vast majority of people out there in developed countries in some kind of economic distress are there from their own fault. They want a big tv, an expensive car, nice house, trendy clothes, crap-ton of 12carat nasty bling jewelry and they want it now and buy it through loans they cannot afford, living beyond their means.
And when the repo comes, they blame it all on... capitalism, the bank, the government?
Capitalism, banks and governments didn't make them spend money they didn't have on depreciating junk they couldn't afford! In fact, it's most of the reason for the markets bouncing up and down like a yoyo for the last few weeks

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I like how you assume I'm at the top I actually don't make much $$. You'd probably consider me one of those poor folks who needs your help.

How does capitalism help combat crime?

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith I live 17,000km away, haven't lived in the UK for close to 15 years and don't subscribe to any of the local rags over there or read them on the internet, so I really don't care what your tabloid press says. What I dislike is that people who have no idea outside of their own country making these wonderful assumptions that nationalisation of private property is ever a good thing when they've never seen the repercussions of such an activity by a government and it's something I feel very strongly about. No, they bounce out of their schooling, see the 'easy' way for everyone to be happy by simply levelling the infrastructure to the point where you've got the government running everything. It simply does not work. It never works! The only people who lose out in the end are still those down on the lower rungs of society anyway and this is being done by a guy who couldn't get into power legitimately in the first place and tried to do it by a military coup! Everything points to this from histories examples alone that once prosperous or at least stable countries end up being turned into nothing more than barren holes overnight. I've got a lot of time for people who life's dealt them a bad hand and need help, but the vast majority of people who end up on that bottom rung of the economic ladder are there either just passing through gaining employment experience, making ends meet or there because that's their lot in life. It's always been like this, it's not always fair but it doesn't matter what type of government is in charge, there's always someone at the bottom. We don't pick them up and stick them in charge of anything important 'just because' they're human beings because they simply cannot do anything more complicated. You can't blame 'Capitalism' for everything, the vast majority of people out there in developed countries in some kind of economic distress are there from their own fault. They want a big tv, an expensive car, nice house, trendy clothes, crap-ton of 12carat nasty bling jewelry and they want it now and buy it through loans they cannot afford, living beyond their means. And when the repo comes, they blame it all on... capitalism, the bank, the government? Capitalism, banks and governments didn't make them spend money they didn't have on depreciating junk they couldn't afford! In fact, it's most of the reason for the markets bouncing up and down like a yoyo for the last few weeks

Righty ho!

You did hear me earlier say I wasn't arguing for communism didn't you? And where ever you live, where ever you have lived, I don't get the impression you're in any position to be making sweeping statements about poor people being poor because it's their own fault.

Can you honestly tell me you don't think that health care should be free? Or that old people should get no help? Or that the unemployed should be thrown onto the streets?

What about the police and the military? Do you trust private corporations to provide these services?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley How does capitalism help combat crime?

Roads, courts, and defense are all legitimate functions of government. State & local governments handle the first two quite well actually.

Under a truly capitalist system, there would only be two laws, both based on the libertarian principle of non-aggression:

#1 No theft.
#2 No violence.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Roads, courts, and defense are all legitimate functions of government. State & local governments handle the first two quite well actually. Under a truly capitalist system, there would only be two laws, both based on the libertarian principle of non-aggression: #1 No theft. #2 No violence.

So would crime incease or decrease in a libertarian society?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So would crime incease or decrease in a libertarian society?

Well given the dramatic increase in general prosperity we would see, I'm betting on a decrease.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Righty ho! You did hear me earlier say I wasn't arguing for communism didn't you? And where ever you live, where ever you have lived, I don't get the impression you're in any position to be making sweeping statements about poor people being poor because it's their own fault. Can you honestly tell me you don't think that health care should be free? Or that old people should get no help? Or that the unemployed should be thrown onto the streets? What about the police and the military? Do you trust private corporations to provide these services?

BAM, couldn't have be more well said.

Fact is: the stubbornness of the division of capitalism and socialism is a result of the cold war, and is being manufactured by certain political parties for their own ends even today, after the end of the cold war.

You said it best: we're already a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Our system is BEST as a dynamic, living organism. It makes it adaptable to humans. How else could democracy, a human system of government, function?

Like you said: we HAVE to help the sick. We HAVE to help the elderly. We HAVE to help the veterans.

It's just what's right.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.