Socialism

"

Daiena wrote:

Also almost no action on daily bases taken by us is based on good or bad,e/g you replied to this topic to participate in the discussion to feel acknowledged,that's selfish. Joe ate some steak because meat tastes good and happens to help us stay alive and healthy,that's survival,the part about the thief..doesn't even make sense.

We act in an attempt to make something we see as good happen. EVERY action taken, on ANY basis, intends to serve a good. Feeling acknowledged in a forum is seen as good if one acts towards it. Surviving is good (although perhaps not always the greatest good).

We might do things we believe other people think are bad. But when we do, we believe we know better; we believe in an unpopular good.

If you believe the things you aim to achieve with your actions are not good, you have some severe cognitive dissonance.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Daiena wrote:

Also almost no action on daily bases taken by us is based on good or bad,e/g you replied to this topic to participate in the discussion to feel acknowledged,that's selfish. Joe ate some steak because meat tastes good and happens to help us stay alive and healthy,that's survival,the part about the thief..doesn't even make sense.

We act in an attempt to make something we see as good happen. EVERY action taken, on ANY basis, intends to serve a good. Feeling acknowledged in a forum is seen as good if one acts towards it. Surviving is good (although perhaps not always the greatest good).

So feeling something is good? That can literally justify any action. Definitions of 'good' should not be so all inclusive.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Daiena wrote:

Also almost no action on daily bases taken by us is based on good or bad,e/g you replied to this topic to participate in the discussion to feel acknowledged,that's selfish. Joe ate some steak because meat tastes good and happens to help us stay alive and healthy,that's survival,the part about the thief..doesn't even make sense.

We act in an attempt to make something we see as good happen. EVERY action taken, on ANY basis, intends to serve a good. Feeling acknowledged in a forum is seen as good if one acts towards it. Surviving is good (although perhaps not always the greatest good).

So feeling something is good? That can literally justify any action. Definitions of 'good' should not be so all inclusive.

I do not mean to define good as the intent of any action, but to define intent in terms of (a personal view of) good. People simply do not intend to make things worse by their own standards; intent either is nurturing towards good-as-the-actor-sees-it or harmful towards evil-as-the-actor-sees-it. One cannot act without first rationalizing their intent to themselves somehow.

The process is thought, then intent, then action. Determining good occurs during the first step and thus cannot be defined by the chronological second. However, intent can be inferred from the action (exception: errors of execution), and the actor's view of good can usually be inferred from the intent (exception: errors in reasoning from view of good to intent); thus, the actor's view of good can usually be inferred from the action.

Speaking of socialism, Fidel Castro just died.

socialism? The one from 1930?

Ha godwin law snap

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

My standard is: if a law is a net profit - that is, total economic benefit exceeds total economic cost - I'm for it. Consider a law against murder. If murder is permitted, it's pretty safe to say that you have a fairly negative outlook on being able to benefit from your own labor; therefore, preventing murder increases productivity. I think it's safe to say that the net increase in production greatly exceeds the cost of enforcement. Excellent law.

As a prosperity centrist, I believe: that ideal laws are based on current conditions, so changing conditions change the ideal; that (although I lean towards cost-effective capitalism) pragmatism trumps blind ideology; that the effectiveness of good laws is measurable using economic metrics; and that cost-effectiveness in government is more important than raw size.

That is kinda cheesy. That didn't really answer the hard questions if you think the Law should be based on economic consideration. Some things to think about.

How much are people's lives worth? How much is too much before you stop helping them or think they are expendable? Would you say a rich man life is worth more than a poor man? Is the poor, the sick and and needy social liabilities that not worth helping? Better yet, how much do you think your life is worth?

All you need to know about socialism, is that people flee from socialism into capitalism & democracy, not the other way around. This seems to be a natural law, like the direction of forces in the magnetic field or gravity.

Socialism is basically unnatural and inhumane. Everywhere it popped up and implemented governmental (=ideological) control over everything, it made the country more poor & miserable. So, if you believe in the scientific method, you should throw socialism into the garbage bin. It's an empirically proven failed theory, that didn't produce wealth nor liberty for its citizens. Only free people produce excess of wealth.

When you leave people to be free, social inequalities will always occur. Because some people are smarter than others, more talented than others, less lazy then others... it's a biological law. Marxism wants to erase this, by forcing everyone into "equality", thus trying to defy evolution & biology. In Marxist theory the labour of a surgeon (difficult, highly responsible job), is valued the same as that of a garbage disposal man (menial task that everyone can do) - that's why collectivist / Marxist utopia will never work - it's unnatural.

"

morbo wrote:

All you need to know about socialism, is that people flee from socialism into capitalism & democracy, not the other way around. This seems to be a natural law, like the direction of forces in the magnetic field or gravity.

I think you confuse oppressive rulers with socialism. India and China seems to be doing quite well. Regardless of the system, if the people at the top are bastards then it wont be a pleasant rule.

"

morbo wrote:

Socialism is basically unnatural and inhumane. Everywhere it popped up and implemented governmental (=ideological) control over everything, it made the country more poor & miserable.

Patently false. Soviet Union, China, India.

"

morbo wrote:

So, if you believe in the scientific method, you should throw socialism into the garbage bin. It's an empirically proven failed theory, that didn't produce wealth nor liberty for its citizens.

Again, patently false.

"

morbo wrote:

Only free people produce excess of wealth.

In socialism, 'excess wealth' is distributed. Its just not obvious. Further more, what good is excess wealth? If it's not being utilized it might as well not exist.

"

morbo wrote:

When you leave people to be free, social inequalities will always occur. Because some people are smarter than others, more talented than others, less lazy then others... it's a biological law. Marxism wants to erase this, by forcing everyone into "equality", thus trying to defy evolution & biology. In Marxist theory the labour of a surgeon (difficult, highly responsible job), is valued the same as that of a garbage disposal man (menial task that everyone can do) - that's why collectivist / Marxist utopia will never work - it's unnatural.

On this i agree to a point. There needs to be incentive for people to produce and innovate to appeal to the masses who cant see past their own pocketbook.
But that does not mean providing for the minimal requires of living shouldnt be a feat taken on by the government. Nor does it mean the economy shouldnt be regulated to channel resources into areas that provide true benefits to society.

"

SkyCore wrote:

I think you confuse oppressive rulers with socialism. India and China seems to be doing quite well. Regardless of the system, if the people at the top are bastards then it wont be a pleasant rule.

No, socialism can not be anything else but oppressive. More government (economical, cultural & social) control over your life is oppressive by definition. Also big government == big corruption. You maybe think socialism would do just fine in USA, because USA are wealthy, but eventually it would drain the country. If you want to see how socialism fares vs free market democracy (in both citizen liberties & wealth production), just compare North & South Korea - same cultural people but different political system, produced drastically different results.

China is doing well economically only because they ditched socialism bullshit in the late 70' and slowly reformed to capitalist (somewhat) free market. China is also doing very poorly on human rights, environmental care, etc... precisely because the people are not in control of their country. They are ruled by a highly corrupt massive government, that doesn’t answer to anyone. It's not a place you'd want to live in for sure.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

morbo wrote:

Socialism is basically unnatural and inhumane. Everywhere it popped up and implemented governmental (=ideological) control over everything, it made the country more poor & miserable.

Patently false. Soviet Union, China, India.

Soviet Union - police state, zero liberties, collapsed economically and was mostly developing weapons for the arms race and doing very poorly in terms of civilian needs. That's why Russia can today send men into orbit, but can't compete in car production with small Italy or S.Korea.

China - police state, zero liberties, completely failed to produce wealth for its citizens, until they started to ditch socialist ideas for capitalist free market reforms in the late 70'. The forced industrialization has destroyed / poisoned their own environment and their human rights record is abysmal. E: They also erased a good portion of their own culture, because Commies know better than thousands of years of prosperous Chinese civilization before them.

India - a developing country, democracy, with massive social inequalities and underdeveloped regions. Would you be rather a poor citizen in India or in USA?

You wouldn't want to live in any of these "highly successful" socialist states, let alone in the less successful ones: Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, North Korea...