Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

This forum can be a scary place, 'cause we got lax rules: let's see your war face. Take a breath, and roll the dice, you might find out we're really nice.

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby BeeAre » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:39 am

RuffDraft wrote:I refuse to believe that this childish, ideological theory would solve any non-theoretical problems in the real world. And it is because it is a theory that fails in practice that I refute the idea.


o_o you mean like public schools solving child labor (at least in the first world)? or labor unions inventing the weekend? in plenty of first-world nations, they already have public healthcare that people are happy to pay for with their taxes because they as a majority have agreed that it was a good idea.

yes, all these things also present new problems, but do you really think that socialist/communist ideas have never contributed positive things to the world? EVER? And you really think it's childish to pursue the worth from these ideas?

The theory in its completeness fails in the same way mathematicians and physicists can't prove individual problems but still have other evidence to suggest that they're the correct solution. See any of the Millennium Prize Puzzles. Or the LHC. Both of these things are ideological in origin, providing very little immediate practical worth to the individual. Or fuck, trying to go to Mars! A whole lot of theory is ideological in origin and does little to advance practical worth in the beginning! That's why technology makes it more attainable.

Why would you even begin to think Communism can't contribute good to the world? :(
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5562
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby DaCrum » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:39 am

Hm.

Let's see what logical fallacy that is...

Well for one, the problems that perfect communism would solve...

Poverty
Starvation
Economic imbalance

And all it means is a distribution of wealth. In a world economy, it is very well possible for a Communistic state to succeed.

All it requires is for people to be non-selfish.

Not even selfless. Just non-selfish.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby BeeAre » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:44 am

And DaCrum, it's not even like the sort of non-selfish behavior required is impossible in this day and age with the technologies we have! The previous system is so established that it would and will take time to transition, sure, but even with technology we have today, the behaviors asked of every consenting person into a communist society are no different than those asked of them in capitalist societies, with the benefit that there is no one person you have to be subservient to in order to survive. Everyone equally participates and benefits. :x
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5562
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby DaCrum » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:47 am

Either way, I like capitalism. But government needs to prevent plutocracy, needs to keep big business small. And business needs to prevent totalitarianism, keep government out of our lifestyle. There's certain things I do not trust in the hands of capitalism, in the hands of businessmen. Things like education, health care, unemployment, soc. sec., public sec., armed forces, infrastructure. I joke about being a socialist, but the sheer fact is is that the extreme of either system is not good. Right now, we're leaning right. I just want us on center.

Also, I still think Soros is a chump. And Beck's a douche.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Q.U. » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:37 am

Everyone equally participates and benefits. :x

and everyone participates to the extent to which they choose.

In other words in perfect communism a lazy guy can do nothing all day and he will have as much wealth and the same living standards as a guy who works his ass off every day. Your idea of equality is shit BR.

People who work harder have more, people who are smarter have more, people who know how to get more have more, as they should. Wild capitalism is the way of dropping out the useless units of a society, in which you only have what you work for and don't have to pay others for their inability, stupidity, or laziness. The only potential problems are inheritance and squandering growth opportunities of others who are also capable.
So no, no system is perfect, even in theory.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:10 am

@ BR & DaCrum: Interesting. I had originally planned to ask "What problems does Communism solve?" Instead, I used inflammatory rhetoric, and you both staunchly rose to defend your cases. In that regard, Kudos all around.

And yet you both used examples that have nothing to do with Communism.

-Public schools ending child labor: Public schools did not end child labor. It was largely done by public and private-sector advocacy groups.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAchild.htm

-Labor unions inventing the weekend: The concept of "weekends" came about because of religion. Sundays have always been days of rest for Christians, but the Jewish Sabbath is Saturday. Labor unions (which are Democratic rather than Communistic) tried to accomodate their Jewish members by reducing the work week to five days. And according to "Waiting for the Weekend" by Witold Rybczynski, the first five-day work week was instituted by a New England spinning mill for just this reason.
http://ask.yahoo.com/20050617.html

-Public (Socialized) health care: In the interest of civility, I will not split hairs about the difference between Communism and Socialism. However, I think you may find this interesting: http://fee.org/nff/socialized-health-ca ... t-reality/

-The idea that technology relates in some way to Communism: I don't see how you draw a line from one to the other in this case. Could you explain in greater detail?

-Poverty: If I understand, your idea is that somehow poverty is eliminated when Communism works. Meaning, everyone's birth certificate is enough for them to draw from the system. So what happens to people who don't want to work? They're not productive; they don't strive towards the "common good." Should they continue to leech off the system, or should they be penalized for their sloth? I haven't read the whole Manifesto; does Marx cover this question?

-Starvation: Please tell me how Communism solves this. I might be biased, but I doubt world hunger would be solved simply by a Communist system. Please, show me how.

-Economic imbalance: If it's Communism, there is no economy, because as BR illustrated earlier, there is no money. Yet, I can't help but think that "economic imbalance" would be replaced by "social imbalance." What we have now would be replaced by something arguably worse. That solves nothing.

@Q.U.: For once, I agree with you. That's such a weird feeling.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Q.U. » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:19 am

@Q.U.: For once, I agree with you. That's such a weird feeling.

Feels dirty all over, doesn't it?

-Starvation: Please tell me how Communism solves this. I might be biased, but I doubt world hunger would be solved simply by a Communist system. Please, show me how.

World-wide food production is more than enough to feed each and every person in the world sufficiently and there would still be surplus. Hunger is there due to uneven distribution of food, where fat overweight American throws away 9 tonnes of food a year, while Ethiopians are starving. Communism technically promotes even distribution of wealth, so yeah, we'd all be "poorer" but we would all have had "enough" food to live. Too bad communism doesn't account for things commonly referred to as "luxuries". There are no luxuries in communism. So as long as some items or foods are hard and expensive to make, and are not supplied sufficiently to be split evenly on the whole world population, communism will not work.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Sentios » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:57 am

RuffDraft wrote:-Poverty: Meaning, everyone's birth certificate is enough for them to draw from the system. So what happens to people who don't want to work? They're not productive; they don't strive towards the "common good." Should they continue to leech off the system, or should they be penalized for their sloth?


Depends if you think it's ethical to demand manual or intellectual labor in order to procure means of even the most basic biological necessities. Work or die mentality basically, a model very alike to slavery. Also you'd have to account for professions which don't result in benefit to a society.
Wizard Status. 5 more years
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:05 am

Professions like what, for example?
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Q.U. » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:16 am

Sentios wrote:Depends if you think it's ethical to demand manual or intellectual labor in order to procure means of even the most basic biological necessities. Work or die mentality basically, a model very alike to slavery.

Really? So if you run out all alone into the Amazon jungle in which you are all on your own and you either work to make a shelter and hunt for food to live or just sleep and starve to death then that is nature turning you into a slave? How dumb is that? Now if there was you and your friend, and he was the one doing all the work and food gathering while you do nothing and just benefit from his work to keep you alive as he supplies you with those "basic commodities", that's NOT slavery!? Slavery is making a person work without the ability to gather the benefits of his own work. Not just by making somebody work by not supplying him with everything he needs.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby DaCrum » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:43 am

I'd say it's erroneous to cite Russia as an example for anything. They failed at Feudalism, they failed at Monarchy, they failed at Communism, and they fail at Democracy. That's like citing Haiti as an example of capitalism. I'd feel it more appropriate to compare US private health care to countries such as the UK, Canada, Germany, or France, as that's the system I more hope to achieve.

Also, QU, that's the stupidest argument I've heard. Get yo cynic bullshit outta here.

Even though I said the same thing for my reason why I'm not fully socialist.

I'd be more able to address the rest of your points if I had taken a poli sci class, but good points. Too tired to argue them. RuffDraft wins.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Sentios » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:08 pm

RuffDraft wrote:Professions like what, for example?

Most professions that just move money around with out any direct connection to material goods or services which improve the society on the whole. Bankers, the stock market, CEOs, and so on.

Q.U. wrote:Really? So if you run out all alone into the Amazon jungle in which you are all on your own and you either work to make a shelter and hunt for food to live or just sleep and starve to death then that is nature turning you into a slave? How dumb is that? Now if there was you and your friend, and he was the one doing all the work and food gathering while you do nothing and just benefit from his work to keep you alive as he supplies you with those "basic commodities", that's NOT slavery!? Slavery is making a person work without the ability to gather the benefits of his own work. Not just by making somebody work by not supplying him with everything he needs.


So are you are suggesting that a modern civilization should be modeled after the conditions of the Amazon rain-forest? Then what is the point of a civilization at all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

As far as slavery goes, I only said it's alike to slavery not IS slavery. For one it's at the systemic level not the individual level; where in a grouping (the wealthy) live off the work of others and where there exists a varying level of neglect or disregard for the workers' health and well-being. Refusal to work means death, usually slowly through starvation and disease, almost all the time.
Wizard Status. 5 more years
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby BeeAre » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:01 pm

I am on pills right now, so I am not very good at making a broader case, but I'd like to focus on one idea:

You guys misinterpret that laziness would be the normative of a society where participation is choice. That only seems relevant because you don't trust people to interact for one another's benefit as the highest ideal in the society.

if there is nothing but social obligation to involve yourself in an activity, that is the motivating factor. people simply must be acclimatized to that as the factor that involves themselves.

This also means that if you do things because you want others to benefit, you perpetually make choices that provide specific benefits to specific people to make their lives worthwhile. The amount of effort you put into serving everyone around you is literally the measurement by how you would receive anything above the standard baseline of that participation.

i saw like, this talk on TED.com about how money is not a motivating factor for highly specialized technical or creative positions, and how in multiple studies, productivity in these fields consistently comes from following projects that interest the person working on them, and how merely the recognition by others and for others is what makes them appreciate their work.

In a communist society, therefore, the things you do would be interesting to you because you would be doing them for in descending order, the personal satisfaction, the reactions you get from others, and the seal of your contribution cleanly made.

I would get onto your other points, but I'm specifically arguing on the behaviors of things. All your other points are merely discrediting my assertion that communism has no positive impacts on the world whatsoever, which I would just say is illogical to assume. That the theory has no practical benefit at all is a bad argument to make for any well-developed philosophy or model.

I notice no one touched on the argument that scientifically speaking we approach new ground through incomplete or impractical theories all the time. It's hard to invalidate that claim, and that's essentially all I argued.

But come on, let's see more arguments to disprove this post's case that will center around how people morally should not be trusted to be anything but lazy and horrible to each other. :\
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5562
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby BeeAre » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:06 pm

i am seriously tempted to lock this thread not because i have anything against this discussion, but because every post we make will make Valhallen's inevitable mind-destroying page-long post even bigger or worse have him SKIP a lot of these arguments. :[

btw: your source against public school being a major factor in limiting child labor is constantly discussing the federal government's involvement in limiting and removing child labor with the eventual laws to stop them from being put into labor being not the solution to children not having anything to do all day since they could not work, so I guess you are technically correct that first we had to have the federal government outlaw child labor but then we needed a solution to give the kids something to do all day, so the federal government mandated school. kinda seems like a socialist ideological idea to me.

labor unions also are inherently socialist driven machines, and anything democratic has a stint of socialist policy that stems from the discussion about labor that KARL MARX started in the 19th century, making the relationship to communism unavoidable.

your sources literally do nothing but prove my point, RD. My examples are direct historical results of communist and socialist theory being discussed. it's why they didn't show up any earlier than the 19th century, because socialist ideas philosophically revolutionized the concepts of the relationship between the labor for production and the control over the production.

i need to lay down now.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5562
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Sentios » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:40 pm

BeeAre wrote:i saw like, this talk on TED.com about how money is not a motivating factor for highly specialized technical or creative positions, and how in multiple studies, productivity in these fields consistently comes from following projects that interest the person working on them, and how merely the recognition by others and for others is what makes them appreciate their work.


http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
Talking about this?
Wizard Status. 5 more years
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby BeeAre » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:55 pm

Sentios wrote:
BeeAre wrote:i saw like, this talk on TED.com about how money is not a motivating factor for highly specialized technical or creative positions, and how in multiple studies, productivity in these fields consistently comes from following projects that interest the person working on them, and how merely the recognition by others and for others is what makes them appreciate their work.


http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
Talking about this?


:) yes i believe so
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5562
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Q.U. » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:07 pm

So are you are suggesting that a modern civilization should be modeled after the conditions of the Amazon rain-forest? Then what is the point of a civilization at all?

Nope, your communist idea of everybody gets an even share is good, only it's not applicable to the real world.
The purpose of civilisation and technology is to make life easier than gathering food and building mud huts. And more pleasant and comfortable. But you need to look at it in one simple way. Do all your necessary commodities just magically appear in the world, or does some magical machine throw them out at the click of a button? No. All of that is made or gathered by someone. There are many things done by machines these days, but people still need to coordinate and watch over them. In your system somebody who makes 1000 loafs of bread has to give them all away, and gets back a few of them that is said to be "enough for him". Somebody else does nothing and still gets the same amount of bread. How is that in any way fair and equal treatment? Today's world has it solved, every person does something or provides some services, gets a unified currency for their work, and then they can exchange that currency for the work of others. It's a system where those who don't want to work cannot afford other people's work. Except for cases of aid, social care, etc. We are not at the level where we can have everything cheaply and without work. So working towards a better wealthier society is mandatory, otherwise you're just slowing the progress of mankind as a leech.

For one it's at the systemic level not the individual level; where in a grouping (the wealthy) live off the work of others

Okay first of all, those wealthy people still mostly work, and work hard, keeping and increasing their wealth. If you think running a whole damn corporation is "doing nothing" then you have a warped view of reality. Also, most wealthy people started out as poor as anyone else, and worked hard enough to amass wealth (exceptions being inheritance, fraud etc, as I mentioned). In fact, getting money for doing absolutely nothing is really rare, even among the wealthiest. A spoiled child of a millionaire perhaps, or a retired banker with plenty of shares in profitable companies. And I believe it's way better than taking away people's life achievements (like huge companies built from scratch) and give it all away to others to make it "fair". Because the output of what you get should depend on the input of your work into the society. And should you be unable or incapable then you can still count on people who just want to share, in form of charities and other crap.

You guys misinterpret that laziness would be the normative of a society where participation is choice. That only seems relevant because you don't trust people to interact for one another's benefit as the highest ideal in the society.

It's true, I don't. People might get there, at some point, but first they got to mature a bit more.

i saw like, this talk on TED.com about how money is not a motivating factor for highly specialized technical or creative positions, and how in multiple studies, productivity in these fields consistently comes from following projects that interest the person working on them, and how merely the recognition by others and for others is what makes them appreciate their work.

Which doesn't change the fact that should those projects suddenly become well paid, the "interest" in them would not go up.

In a communist society, therefore, the things you do would be interesting to you because you would be doing them for in descending order, the personal satisfaction, the reactions you get from others, and the seal of your contribution cleanly made.

Yes, and I'd love to see it work, in a proper mature society. Unfortunately human race is made up of dickwads who take satisfaction off of the fact that they can get around doing anything tiresome. People get spoiled way too easily.

All your other points are merely discrediting my assertion that communism has no positive impacts on the world whatsoever, which I would just say is illogical to assume.

Agreed, Ruff is an extreme anticommunist.

But come on, let's see more arguments to disprove this post's case that will center around how people morally should not be trusted to be anything but lazy and horrible to each other. :\

There you go. My work here is done.
(Because they are! Or rather a number of them are. Sure there are those who would keep such an utopia going, but to make it work you'd have to be selective.)
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:15 pm

So... your argument is cynicism?
I'm fairly sure BR talking theoretically, in a world and future where that's not the case. Matured, as it was. Where Captain Picard doesn't explore the final frontier for cash, but because it's awesome.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11822
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby BeeAre » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:27 pm

i believe that we could begin to institute policies that embrace the idea that we can be mature and less selfish, Q.U.

not that we would get their in our lifetimes or our grandkids' grandkids' lifetimes, but that we could make successful changes that would improve people's lives dramatically one step at a time, and that the direction of socialist/communist theories DO have practical benefits and ARE worth exploring.

that's all! :[
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5562
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Q.U. » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:36 pm

BeeAre wrote:i believe that we could begin to institute policies that embrace the idea that we can be mature and less selfish, Q.U.

not that we would get their in our lifetimes or our grandkids' grandkids' lifetimes, but that we could make successful changes that would improve people's lives dramatically one step at a time, and that the direction of socialist/communist theories DO have practical benefits and ARE worth exploring.

that's all! :[

Fair enough.

Now go out there and change the world BR.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Valhallen » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:46 pm

BeeAre wrote:i am seriously tempted to lock this thread not because i have anything against this discussion, but because every post we make will make Valhallen's inevitable mind-destroying page-long post even bigger or worse have him SKIP a lot of these arguments. :[
I'll only respond if I have constructive things to add, so make good arguments and it won't be a problem. The post-in-progress is getting pretty long though, and I'm about halfway through RuffDraft's post here.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby BeeAre » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:20 am

Valhallen wrote:I'll only respond if I have constructive things to add, so make good arguments and it won't be a problem. The post-in-progress is getting pretty long though, and I'm about halfway through RuffDraft's post here.


eeeee

Q.U. wrote:Fair enough.

Now go out there and change the world BR.


k brb

edit: fuck i'm dying better take some more vicodin.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5562
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:44 am

If you want, you can simply cite my responses and leave out everything before that. I'll understand what's going on.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Sentios » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:48 am

Q.U. wrote:Omitted, long post


First of all the ideas that I've presented are not uniquely communist ideas, you're running on a false dichotomy here.

Also while you're saying that your ideas are based on reality they're actually just rhetoric. What does it matter to the bread maker who enjoys making bread if they make 1000 loaves of bread and share them while some others make none, the bread maker will not go hungry even if his bakery catches fire and burns in such a system. However what you are arguing is that those who do not work should not benefit from the work of others; then tell me of those who have lost their opportunity to work through no fault of their own. What of those who are grossly overqualified for the positions they hold or are discouraged with their inability to move to a new career?

Your argument rides on the ideas of something for nothing being unique to what you are arguing against; tell me what exactly this 'nothing' consists of. Surely you'll say it's couch potatoes and "leeches", but as I've said what of the money movers who contribute nothing to the society? What of celebrities and professional athletes as well, if money is a representation of 'work for work' then what is taking place with these people?

You've made some bold claims but some of the most disturbing are those related to CEOs. Prove to me that it is more work to figure-head (don't even attempt to argue they're running the whole thing, they have entire pyramid of people below them putting in the actual man-hours) a corporation than it is to make the products that corporation sells. Further if hard work is the defining feature between the wealthy and the not then explain to me how there are people who work 16 hours a day and can barely put food on their table. Your ideas about getting money by doing nothing being rare is a joke though, even at the simplest level there's always savings accounts. Anyone can get more money if they have money to start with, there is no work involved.
Wizard Status. 5 more years
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion (1/30-2/6): George Soros

Postby Q.U. » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:33 am

First of all the ideas that I've presented are not uniquely communist ideas

They sourced from socialism, and since we're talking about communism that's what I'm referring to. Of course the real spectrum of government systems that relate is wider than that.

What does it matter to the bread maker who enjoys making bread if they make 1000 loaves of bread and share them while some others make none, the bread maker will not go hungry even if his bakery catches fire and burns in such a system

It does matter if the other guy was supposed to get eggs, but doesn't. Thus even if you enjoy your work, in order for you to have a decent living standard you will still need a wide range of products and services from others, provided that they are willing to even produce.

However what you are arguing is that those who do not work should not benefit from the work of others; then tell me of those who have lost their opportunity to work through no fault of their own.

Q.U. wrote:Except for cases of aid, social care, etc.

Can't work cause of inability? We live in a capitalist world and still manage to get a socialist-sourced social care program.

what of the money movers who contribute nothing to the society? What of celebrities and professional athletes as well, if money is a representation of 'work for work' then what is taking place with these people?

Work for work indeed. What, you need me to explain with rhetoric points how today's world market works? Work or talent may lead to fame, fame leads to recognition, and recognition is what is desired for marketing. Athletes get money in this system somehow, right? Through prizes and winning championships is one thing, another is carrying a corporate logo on your shirt as you run. Running around with a commercial on your ass is pretty much work imho.

Prove to me that it is more work to figure-head (don't even attempt to argue they're running the whole thing, they have entire pyramid of people below them putting in the actual man-hours) a corporation than it is to make the products that corporation sells.

Why would I want to prove that? Of course it's usually not more work than what the blue collar worker working for them does. But as I mentioned, they managed to GET THERE somehow. Usually it's due to being that hard-working guy for decades before they managed to use their smarts and intelligence or connections to become rich. Fortune doesn't just fall on top of your head man, most of the times you have to work your ass off to get somewhere.

explain to me how there are people who work 16 hours a day and can barely put food on their table.

Corporate exploitation? Market crisis? Filling in work places that could be done by about anybody with no qualifications needed? Never once claimed that today's capitalism is perfect. It's pretty crap, actually. Still better than putting all people equal instead of letting them prove their own worth.

Anyone can get more money if they have money to start with, there is no work involved.

Exactly, that's the beauty of having money. But you keep on forgetting that they had to GET that first bunch of money somehow. And trust me, G-man giving them his suitcase is NOT a likely explanation for people getting rich.
Case study here, my friend's father used to be your regular rather middle class worker. Until one day he came up with the idea of producing something trivial and yet not produced at all. So he started a company, and due to lack of competition in the field he became rich. He doesn't have to work as hard any more, cause others work for him. That's the benefit of supplying mankind with something it wanted that made life more convenient.
Hell, look at this, I'm writing this from a laptop with Win7 on it. You know the guy who invented Windows? Yeah that rich asshole. Did he help the world develop more than you have your whole life so far? I think a LOT more. So he has a LOT more money. Simple enough?
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to Wham, Spam, Thank you, Ma'am!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Princess and 13 guests