|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
 Posted - 03/09/2006 : 12:30:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Socialism FAILS every time it is tried.
Ummm...have you ever heard of Europe? |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 12:40:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
quote:
Socialism FAILS every time it is tried.
Ummm...have you ever heard of Europe?
We all know Europe is a hoax and doesn't really exist.
(just had to say that...) |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 13:00:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
You sound like a liberal arts major who grew up to be a practicing socialist.
Wow! You nailed me PERFECTLY right out of the gate!
I'm interested...please define "socialism".
quote:
So you REALLY believe the internet wouldn't exist if it were not for government? How quaint.
You completely missed the point, Skippy. There's a fallacy in that last statement in there somewhere but I do not have the time to research. The point is that the government AND those evil liberal universities DID develop the internet and it works pretty well. This is not a WHAT IF or a WELL, IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER argument. Due to government incentive and investment, the Arpanet WAS developed. No amount of history rewriting will change that FACT.
News for you...Private industry can be and often is more inefficient than government. And the government has a long history of successes.
Government Successes: http://home.att.net/~resurgence/Governmentsuccesses.htm
Free market failures:
http://home.att.net/~resurgence/Marketfailures.htm
Could government be more efficient? Of course. Should there be places that government should be in the "business". Of course. But libertarianism
I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue this at length any further. But it would behoove you to read the below article. It also might interest you that I, too, was once a Libertarian/Reagan Republican until thorough research convinced me of my errors.
Check out this article on Libertarianism from the American Conservative magazine titled "Marxism of the Right":http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html
Some nuggets from the aforementioned article:
"If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation."
"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it."
"Libertarians in real life rarely live up to their own theory but tend to indulge in the pleasant parts while declining to live up to the difficult portions. They flout the drug laws but continue to collect government benefits they consider illegitimate."
"Libertarianism's abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to bizarre conclusions...which degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the insane and the senile."
"Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs, would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or homes... They claim a “natural order” of reasonable behavior would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would happen..."
"And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices? While |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 14:33:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government... The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
It seems to me that no form of government that's ever been tried has been "permanent." Nice to note that at 228 years (or so), the U.S. is above average.
But, more importantly, what sort of non-democratic government would you prefer?
Actually, the US form of representative republic was modled partially on the Six Nations democracy which has been successful for over 800 years.
While not permanent, it does have a pretty good track record.
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/
Yes, I know. I was quoting Tytler in response to marfknox's quote:
quote:
The welfare state was brought on by demand of the people. That's what we call democracy.
Seemed to be the perfect response. 
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 14:38:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government... The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
It seems to me that no form of government that's ever been tried has been "permanent." Nice to note that at 228 years (or so), the U.S. is above average.
But, more importantly, what sort of non-democratic government would you prefer?
A republic is FINE with me. But I want to get back to the minimal form of government we enjoyed before tyrants like Lincoln and FDR screwed it all up. The only legitimate function of government is to enforce the rights of the individual. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 14:40:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
quote:
Socialism FAILS every time it is tried.
Ummm...have you ever heard of Europe?
Yeah, just proves my point. But you don't have to go that far to find it. Have you ever heard of Massachusetts, NY or DC? |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 14:58:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
I'm interested...please define "socialism".
Which one - National socialism (government control) - you know...like in the US...or Marxist socialism (government ownership)...like in Europe?
quote:
You completely missed the point, Skippy. There's a fallacy in that last statement in there somewhere but I do not have the time to research. The point is that the government AND those evil liberal universities DID develop the internet and it works pretty well. This is not a WHAT IF or a WELL, IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER argument.
Yes it is.quote:
Due to government incentive and investment, the Arpanet WAS developed. No amount of history rewriting will change that FACT.
Sure, academia was a starting point, but the www wouldn't have any more than a few thousand subscribers without Compuserve, AOL and other private concerns. And yes, lamentably academia is now just another branch of the state...wonder how long it will be until medicine goes the same way?quote:
News for you...Private industry can be and often is more inefficient than government. And the government has a long history of successes.
Government Successes: http://home.att.net/~resurgence/Governmentsuccesses.htm
Free market failures:
http://home.att.net/~resurgence/Marketfailures.htm
Could government be more efficient? Of course. Should there be places that government should be in the "business". Of course. But libertarianism
I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue this at length any further. But it would behoove you to read the below article. It also might interest you that I, too, was once a Libertarian/Reagan Republican until thorough research convinced me of my errors.
Check out this article on Libertarianism from the American Conservative magazine titled "Marxism of the Right":http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html
Some nuggets from the aforementioned article:
"If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation."
"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it."
"Libertarians in real life rarely live up to their own theory but tend to indulge in the pleasant parts while declining to live up to the difficult portions. They flout the drug laws but continue to collect government benefits they consider illegitimate."
"Libertarianism's abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to bizarre conclusions...which degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like those against child labor a |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 14:59:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
A republic is FINE with me.
Well, if you contend that it's not permanent, and inevitably decays, then why would it be fine with you?quote:
But I want to get back to the minimal form of government we enjoyed before tyrants like Lincoln and FDR screwed it all up. The only legitimate function of government is to enforce the rights of the individual.
How far do you feel those rights extend? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 15:45:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
A republic is FINE with me.
Well, if you contend that it's not permanent, and inevitably decays, then why would it be fine with you?quote:
But I want to get back to the minimal form of government we enjoyed before tyrants like Lincoln and FDR screwed it all up. The only legitimate function of government is to enforce the rights of the individual.
How far do you feel those rights extend?
The individual has the right to engage in any activity which does not cause physical harm to another individual, deprive him of his property or unduly emperil him. There is a definite difference between private and public conduct. When in public, individuals must abide by those reasonable (yes, open to interpretation) constraints imposed by the collective to assure the peace and safety of society. In private, an individual's autonomy over himself is absolute and if he lives with others he must abide by the limits of conduct agreed upon among them.
Pretty simple, eh? |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 16:00:17 [Permalink]
|
I tend to agree with THoR on a few things here. But I think you go to far man.
No society can survive, long term, without a mechanism to redress social and economic injustice.
Government, being impartial (supposedly), is the tool to implement those mechanisms.
Any implemetation of those "pure" forms of government/economic systems (capitalism, democracy, socialism, communism, etc) are not viable over a long term. They must be tempered with other things.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 16:35:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
if he lives with others he must abide by the limits of conduct agreed upon among them.
And if they agree among themselves to abuse their own children, this is ok? Just wondering where the boundaries are.... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 16:55:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I tend to agree with THoR on a few things here. But I think you go to far man.
No society can survive, long term, without a mechanism to redress social and economic injustice.
Government, being impartial (supposedly), is the tool to implement those mechanisms.
Any implemetation of those "pure" forms of government/economic systems (capitalism, democracy, socialism, communism, etc) are not viable over a long term. They must be tempered with other things.
We agree. To enforce the rights of the individual would require
1) A military to defend against invasion
2) Courts to resolve disputes
3) An interstate authority to settle issues between states
I'm not an anarchist, I believe government should be MUCH smaller (10% present size) than it is now. Today we cough up a MINimum of 25% of our earnings to support it. God only asks 10%. Who the HELL do they think they are? |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 16:59:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
if he lives with others he must abide by the limits of conduct agreed upon among them.
And if they agree among themselves to abuse their own children, this is ok? Just wondering where the boundaries are....
They would be dealing with someone who is not competent to make his/her own decisions. There can be no 'agreement' between the superior parent and inferior child. If a parent caused harm to a child it would be a crime. If a spouse euthanized another spouse with consent, it would not. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 19:04:53 [Permalink]
|
THoR posted: quote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
-Alexander Tytler
What a gross simplification of human history. Maybe you've been reading Asimov's Foundation series too much. In the world of reality, human history doesn't fall into nice neat little patterns that we can identify and then use to predict the future.
“These attempts are classed as philosophy of history, because they find a system and a purpose in the chaos of events. This is done by assigning one continuous force or a predestined goal as the motive power which in the end will bring mankind to some attractive or disasterous end. Divine Providence, the march of Freedom, or the class struggle is shown to obe the engine at work beneath the welter. By grouping historical instances that show a steady progression, the thesis is proved.
“The merit of these ambitious works lies in their by-products, the descriptive parts, which are often good history, original and convincing. It is when the author forces well-known events and persons into a set of boxes that the scheme breaks down; for example, when Toynbee has to make the Thirty Years' War a “small war” to satisfy his set pattern. What vitiates all the systems is the fallacy of the single cause. To begin with, cause in history cannot be ascertained any better than motive in its human agents. Both must be represented as probable, and it is wiser to speak of conditions rather than causes and of influences rather than a force making for change, because what brings it about is the human will, which is distributed among all living things.”
-Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, page 654 of the Hardcover, published 2000 by Harper Collins
People who try to make predictions of inevitability based on general trends and patterns in history are going to end up with egg on their face when they are proven wrong. Human societies are not so predictable.
quote:
Socialism FAILS every time it is tried.
First of all, define socialism. Then define success. For instance, the Khoi San of Africa have been running a completely egalitarian society successfully for thousands of years. They don't have a concept of ownership. If someone has two of something, they quickly give away one to someone who has none of that thing. That certainly counts as a success for socialism in my book.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 21:19:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
The individual has the right to engage in any activity which does not cause physical harm to another individual, deprive him of his property or unduly emperil him. There is a definite difference between private and public conduct. When in public, individuals must abide by those reasonable (yes, open to interpretation) constraints imposed by the collective to assure the peace and safety of society. In private, an individual's autonomy over himself is absolute and if he lives with others he must abide by the limits of conduct agreed upon among them.
Pretty simple, eh?
Very simple, yes, and a wonderful vision (a government 1/10th its current size), to boot.
My next question would be, how would the U.S. Constitution need to be changed to prohibit the enactment of legislation aimed at not just promoting the general welfare of the citizenry, but actively benefiting the general welfare? In other words, how does one make the Interstate Highway System or the FDA or even Welfare unconstitutional?
And then, can such restrictions be also placed upon individual states, or even towns? How can we prohibit taxpayer-funded street sweeping, garbage collection or even public schooling? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
