Jump to content

What Kind of society would you like to live in?


Peron
 Share

Recommended Posts

Moontanman,

I'm pretty sure we already figured out that i was talking about American capitalism and its effects, not the USA hence why i did not say USA. and i do have substantial evidence to support my claims.

 

No Zolar you just make the claims and act like you are the word of god and move on. so far you have done nothing but make claims. You made the obvious claim of deaths in the USA now you say you meant something else but neither on is supportable anywhere but in your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SWEET!

 

I guess I forgot that your people had completely eliminated greed and won't mind the pure profits we'll make from selling your free surplus.

well yea, i thought of that once i submitted my reply. but in my defense i was thinking of the WORLD as communist, not just one country surrounded by capitalists. but even then i would still say yes.

I hope you don't eliminate ambition, innovation, motivation and creativity in the process. Greed can produce some great results, and actually spur people past complacent acceptance of the status quo.

in all honesty i would have to disagree. I don't think that Greed really produces that great of a result. if i lived in my society where i could do whatever i wanted without worrying about things like food, clothing or a home, i would have become a researcher and inventor.

i LOVE science. i live and dream it. i cant take a stroll anywhere without wondering about why is that organism/inorganic material there, what is its purpose, how does it work, why does it work, how does it affect its surroundings, what would happen if it wasn't there. from my understanding in science, any great invention or law was not created by greed but rather lust for knowledge. if anything money dampens scientific advance.

like i said before, if we were socialist we would have been to other planets by now. when i said that i did not mean just landing there as we did on the moon, but colonized it by now. i don't see any reason why we have not except money.

 

My point is that, when questioned about your statement that thousands of people die each day in capitalist countries, you brought up links for hunger, which may proceed starvation but does not equal starvation. And even your last link shows me that around 20,000 worldwide will die from hunger today. While I deplore that it happens, what you call it is important, and your link is wrong, no one dies from just hunger. These poor people died from severe malnutrition and starvation, and while these are extreme cases of hunger, they can't be lumped together with your other statistics for hunger. That would be like saying all poor people go bankrupt. It's just not true.

 

I think your misunderstanding my link.

they don't individually say that capitalist countries have starvation, rather they build on each other.

One link describes which countries have hunger. Then CIA link describe which of those countries that do have Hunger are capitalist. CIA link is a cross reference of another link that just tells which countries are capitalist. Finally you have the Statistic link for how many deaths there were today from hunger induced Starvation.

yes i do suppose that the statistic is not as accurate as i would like due to the fact it does not distinguish which countries people died from. but with the link that describes the countries that have hunger with %% you can predict where a death will occur and if it occurred in a capitalist country.

honesty if i was a programmer i might actually go ahead and make a link doing such a thing. but I'm not.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
No Zolar you just make the claims and act like you are the word of god and move on. so far you have done nothing but make claims. You made the obvious claim of deaths in the USA now you say you meant something else but neither on is supportable anywhere but in your mind.

 

no i didn't. but i am not going to argue with you. so unless you post something useful i am going to just ignore your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in all honesty i would have to disagree. I don't think that Greed really produces that great of a result.
It's gotten us where we are today. We call it greed when it's excessive, but the same driving force is also called ambition, passion, desire and enterprise.

 

if i lived in my society where i could do whatever i wanted without worrying about things like food, clothing or a home, i would have become a researcher and inventor.

i LOVE science. i live and dream it. i cant take a stroll anywhere without wondering about why is that organism/inorganic material there, what is its purpose, how does it work, why does it work, how does it affect its surroundings, what would happen if it wasn't there.

Commendable, but hardly something you could force on a society as a whole. Your society may eventually become that praiseworthy and selfless, but how would you survive the first few generations when a majority might just want to sit on their butts and get fed?

 

from my understanding in science, any great invention or law was not created by greed but rather lust for knowledge. if anything money dampens scientific advance.
I think your understanding of science is flawed. Research has always needed a patron with a big purse. And development has always needed a company to pay to bring it to market. And the market has always needed more companies to compete to drive progress and innovation while reducing resource use and costs.

 

like i said before, if we were socialist we would have been to other planets by now.
This kind of "statement of fact" is what I and others have objected to many times in this thread, and it's what prompted me to object to your "Capitalism kills" stance. You don't know this to be true. It's conjecture and you need to be careful, especially in this forum, how you write it. "If we were socialist we would have been to other planets by now, in my opinion", "If we were socialist we probably would have been to other planets by now", or even "If we were socialist we would have been to other planets by now because of these reasons: ....", are the way you need to phrase conjectures and opinions. Either let us know this is a belief and not a fact, or let us know exactly why we should take this as fact so we can analyze your reasoning.

 

I think your misunderstanding my link.

they don't individually say that capitalist countries have starvation, rather they build on each other.

One link describes which countries have hunger. Then CIA link describe which of those countries that do have Hunger are capitalist. CIA link is a cross reference of another link that just tells which countries are capitalist. Finally you have the Statistic link for how many deaths there were today from hunger induced Starvation.

Your chain of statistics still doesn't show that worldwide starvation deaths are directly caused by American capitalism. What you need is solid evidence, like when US farmers sold corn to be used for ethanol instead of food because it was more profitable, thus causing a rise in corn prices that denied that staple to the poorest people in the world and resulted in starvation deaths. Once again, I'm not arguing with what you're saying, it's how you're saying it and the sloppy methodology you're using to hastily draw your conclusions.

 

No offense intended. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't part of the solution mandatory population control, which included forced abortion of unplanned pregnancies and a tax of 50% of family income or loss of employment for having more than one child?

 

That is why I don't like to use that example but fact of the matter is they were seemingly successful which is what we were talking about more than the means. BTW it is possible the same outcome could have been achieved through other methods but anything other than the "known" history is pure speculation.

 

Those poor people. Breaks the heart.

 

I know, mine too.:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's gotten us where we are today. We call it greed when it's excessive, but the same driving force is also called ambition, passion, desire and enterprise.

i was thinking a similar thought earlier today. i was thinking about the guy who brought the Bessemer process to America from England. one would think that he was greedy in the mindset that he brought the process over and build a entire corporation based upon it. but on the other hand you could think that he just had ambition and love for his family. in his family life he did it so he could make a good home for himself and his family along with his parents. so like you said greed is just one term for many things.

 

Commendable, but hardly something you could force on a society as a whole. Your society may eventually become that praiseworthy and selfless, but how would you survive the first few generations when a majority might just want to sit on their butts and get fed?

in short --"i don't know".

in a perfect world-- "i wouldn't have to"

in reality-- "its just not going to happen"

 

I think your understanding of science is flawed. Research has always needed a patron with a big purse. And development has always needed a company to pay to bring it to market. And the market has always needed more companies to compete to drive progress and innovation while reducing resource use and costs.

exactly my point. "Research has always needed a patron with a big purse. And development has always needed a company to pay to bring it to market."

science if anything has been held back because it needs money to move forward. however you may say that is untrue due to companies wanting to make something for profits thus fueling new research.

 

This kind of "statement of fact" is what I and others have objected to many times in this thread, and it's what prompted me to object to your "Capitalism kills" stance. You don't know this to be true. It's conjecture and you need to be careful, especially in this forum, how you write it. "If we were socialist we would have been to other planets by now, in my opinion", "If we were socialist we probably would have been to other planets by now", or even "If we were socialist we would have been to other planets by now because of these reasons: ....", are the way you need to phrase conjectures and opinions. Either let us know this is a belief and not a fact, or let us know exactly why we should take this as fact so we can analyze your reasoning.

i suppose your right. looking at it, to me it looks like opinion but to others it could be viewed as fact. it could have been worded much better than what it was.

Your chain of statistics still doesn't show that worldwide starvation deaths are directly caused by American capitalism. What you need is solid evidence, like when US farmers sold corn to be used for ethanol instead of food because it was more profitable, thus causing a rise in corn prices that denied that staple to the poorest people in the world and resulted in starvation deaths. Once again, I'm not arguing with what you're saying, it's how you're saying it and the sloppy methodology you're using to hastily draw your conclusions.

 

No offense intended. :)

 

Again your right, they are indeed sloppy and hasty. but i suppose that's what you get from some out of high school-er who hated English and never payed attention. cant wait till college though... another 5 years on my contract..

 

^ not that that is any excuse for not doing the work completely, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was thinking a similar thought earlier today. i was thinking about the guy who brought the Bessemer process to America from England. one would think that he was greedy in the mindset that he brought the process over and build a entire corporation based upon it. but on the other hand you could think that he just had ambition and love for his family. in his family life he did it so he could make a good home for himself and his family along with his parents. so like you said greed is just one term for many things.
Exactly. And a very good point about the guy's family. We tend to think of greedy people as selfish and alone, but that's rarely the case.

 

exactly my point. "Research has always needed a patron with a big purse. And development has always needed a company to pay to bring it to market."

science if anything has been held back because it needs money to move forward. however you may say that is untrue due to companies wanting to make something for profits thus fueling new research.

Even under a communist utopia, someone has to authorize the use of resources for research and development of specific ideas. Even if the whole world were united in this socialist or communist society, there would have to be a governing body that said yes to certain expenditures and no to others. Resources are still going to be limited to what your work force can bring in. Someone still has to "pay" for everything, even if you don't use money.

 

 

i suppose your right. looking at it, to me it looks like opinion but to others it could be viewed as fact. it could have been worded much better than what it was.

 

 

Again your right, they are indeed sloppy and hasty. but i suppose that's what you get from some out of high school-er who hated English and never payed attention. cant wait till college though... another 5 years on my contract..

 

^ not that that is any excuse for not doing the work completely, but still.

It's pretty refreshing to see someone with a mind sharp enough to see beyond criticism and glean what they need from a discussion. You've proven in this thread that you can defend your ideas without letting your passion override your common sense and courtesy. You have the spark of curiosity and intelligence. The rest is just learned methodology, experience and hard work.

 

Good job. I hope your utopia can actually happen someday. As I said before, there are times when I think free market capitalism keeps us spinning our wheels making the same old cars and toasters because they're profitable but not necessarily better or as good as they could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said before, there are times when I think free market capitalism keeps us spinning our wheels making the same old cars and toasters because they're profitable but not necessarily better or as good as they could be.

 

We need to put more emphasis and better rewards on innovation rather than a way to make a quick buck. Let greed work for us in effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to put more emphasis and better rewards on innovation rather than a way to make a quick buck. Let greed work for us in effect.
And consumers need to be re-educated about convenience and instant gratification. If people would just realize that a high-quality version of a product might cost three times more but lasts six times longer, we could stop importing cheap crap and maybe rekindle an interest in craftsmanship. And let's not forget the delicious pleasure you get from using something that was really really well-made. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And consumers need to be re-educated about convenience and instant gratification. If people would just realize that a high-quality version of a product might cost three times more but lasts six times longer, we could stop importing cheap crap and maybe rekindle an interest in craftsmanship. And let's not forget the delicious pleasure you get from using something that was really really well-made. ;)

 

Oh, I definitely prefer to buy something that will last a very long time even if at a higher cost. What do I do? I buy the cheapest crap there is. How do I know which of all the choices will last a long time? Sure, if it has a good warranty or has metal bits instead of plastic bits, but otherwise I don't really know so I minimize my risk by buying the cheap one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of the times more costly stuff is less damaging. Take shade-grown coffee for instance. Better for the environment, less slashing and burning, doesn't wear out soil as fast (if at all) and has its own unique taste. If people would buy more of this, demand would increase and supply would also. Thus lowering the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just imagine, what if the cheap cost the same amount of the high quality product.

wouldn't more people buy the high quality product rather than the cheap one?

 

its seems to me that given the choice people generally prefer a high quality, low impact product. as opposed to low quality high impact(environmentally) products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kind of society would be where no one tries to force their opinions on everyone else. And where there was no set definition of right and wrong.

 

Btw, in life, something always 'dies' so another may 'live'.

 

So a wolf should not kill a moose and eat its share with the pack, or should it just take a leg or two and let the moose go?

 

The first is capitalism. The weaker let the stronger continue. But the other is socialism. Both 'live' but now the pack is hungery and the moose can't move any more. And eventually, the pack will die of starvation and the moose will bleed out.

 

In capitalism, most do profit. And those who don't. At least they can have hopes and dreams of a better future.

 

In socialism, yes no one's exactly 'dead'. But no everyone suffers and there is no hope for a better future. You can't gain anything.

 

People are always acting like their are only two types of systems in existence. Why not give, Syndicalism a try, or Anarchism?


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
People are always acting like their are only two types of systems in existence. Why not give, Syndicalism a try, or Anarchism?

 

Their are more modern economic system out their, that are less popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not give, Syndicalism a try, or Anarchism?

 

Anarchy, ANARCHY!!! Wow... Sorry that just doesn't work. Look at (what was it called?) Rowanda I believe... No governmental system what so ever and every one suffers there. No one has anything!

 

Now I do not know what Syndicalism is though...

 

Oh btw, we are talking of only these two as they are the most common and most popular really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see where minority syndicates could avoid being crushed by majority syndicates in this system. Syndicalism seems like a more organized system of special interest groups, but won't there be some syndicates that dwarf others? And how can that lead away from an economic aristocracy?

 

I think capitalism is a pretty shit system, but I think you need a word of congratulation for managing to find an even shittier one.

 

Why not give, Syndicalism a try, or Anarchism?
The accolades go to Peron, not Moontanman, who was only providing background research. Let's not shoot the messenger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bang Bang BOOM! You've been nuked by that stupid politician that you thought killed but he somehow survived. Now you're dead and I'm alive... End of story! :D

 

(P.S. I killed the stupid politician later in his sleep and took over your government and changed it into an unlimited monarchy!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.