|Previous Thread:||Looking for a ceo corporations (White Giant)|
|Next Thread:||Join Twelve Nation Army Bloodline (Little Upsilon)|
| Monday, October 31, 2011 - 07:53 pm |
Gee Architect, you swallow a dictionary or something?
| Monday, October 31, 2011 - 10:14 pm |
i think were're missing the point though. i think this was originaly a sugestion of allowing diferent ideological options to influeence your country, and it is an awsome idea (having multiple choices but the design would be incredably dificult
| Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 01:11 am |
Brad DeLong today on Project Syndicate:
Â«Our current political and economic institutions rest upon the wager that a decentralized market provides a better social-planning, coordination, and capital-allocation mechanism than any other that we have yet been able to devise.Â»
For a discussion about capitalism and communism, have you people noticed how many times the word capital was mentioned? None. Property? Once. Even so, I'm not getting any further into this.
As for implications in the game about which ideology we choose, I'm not for it. Not entirely against it, but I don't see a reason to make such a change. I find it more interesting, if the game were to read which political camp we are playing in based on our game actions.
| Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 03:18 am |
Communism can work well on a small scale, within families and small groups. Some elements of communism can scale up within large groups if they are backed by force or by shared culture, religion, history, and dna, but in general communism doesn't scale up well.
Managed economies large and small, with all their rules and regulations and technocrats, can keep existing economies running more or less smoothly and maybe improving at a marginal rate, or perhaps declining at a tolerable rate.
There's nothing like allowing people to build their fortunes and use them as they see fit to foster excitement, advance, and dynamism in virtually every field of human endeavor.
Interesting how people say that communism is good in theory but doesn't work well in real life. No one says that about capitalism. It works just great in "theory", but it channels enough of human nature toward enough constructive ends so that it actually works well enough in real life, too.
| Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 04:13 am |
i think i can say the free market does not self regulate very well (exept for the wealthy) case and point child labour and the horable working conditions in industrial sites. if the market would "self regulate" as "they" say it does the workign conditions wouldnt be so terable bc in theory no one would work there\
a properly regulated capital market isnt too bad
to little regulation poor are destend to be poor for life no matter how hard they try (i know a couple people in poor families couldnt afford school wasnt smart enough for a scholarship but could do well for himself if he could get the schooling but he family was poor so hes stuck in minimum wage.)
my philosophy is if pretty much everyone needs it aka education, health care (includes dental, phamasuiticals), electricity, water, banks (this is my iffy one that i just threw in there (bc banks are actualy not nessesary unless your in a debt based economy)), etc. it should be publicly funded sure add service fees to promote efficency but keep basic rates afordable for all
pure capitalism would be terable
| Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 09:03 am |
For ontologically objective and ontologically subjective, I'm borrowing from John Searle. Something ontologically subjective would be something whose ontology (in the sense that it's being) was first-person, existing in the mind of some person rather than the world. The opposite for ontologically objective, its being is third-person, existing in the world rather than the mind of some person. Anyway, these were the terms he used for something else, but I think the distinction is entirely relevant.
As for epistemically (epistemologically was an error) objective/subjective (Searle also), the purpose of the preceding distinction is to avoid the accusation that knowledge is subjective because it exists in some person's mind (as an example). Something epistemically objective is something whose truth or falsehood would be able to be determined independently of the feelings and attitudes of the speaker. The epistemically subjective would be true or false only based on the attitudes of the speaker. The difference between "John is nice." (epistemically subjective) and "Mike thinks John is nice." (epistemically objective).
The reason for those distinctions is to avoid specific assumptions, most specifically that someone's subjective consciousness and the content of that consciousness cannot be analyzed in an objective manner.
I learned these as stated like this; next time, I'll remember to carefully explain the meanings of any terms I can't easily translate to plain english. I didn't exactly spend that much time writing the whole thing. Anyway, I hope this clarifies what I meant. I generally avoid jargon, but I couldn't think of a better way of expressing it. So yes, these phrases mean exactly what I think they mean.
As for the second part, I honestly thought I deleted that. I have a habit of countering obnoxiousness with obnoxiousness.
| Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 12:42 pm |
There is a difference between "Communism" and the "USSR Centrally Planned Economy."
Put simply (because I don't have the time to write these massive essays), Communism is the theory that everyone is equal and gets the same. However, as everyone knows, all humans are human. We all are greedy and we all want the best for ourselves and our family. If Communism was human nature, would there be wars? No. Because greed drives war, desire and hate.
Examples: Nazi Germany-Hitler used the Great Depression to turn many Germans against the Jews and thus inspired hate. He also told them to invade the rest of Europe to claim "living space" for the German people. Greed for resources, money and a better lifesyle (better than 1930s Germany anyway) drove them to do ridiculous things- proof that greed is human nature.
Greed and revenge (arguably) drove the US to invade Iraq for Oil and some (missing) WMDs.
The Spanish destroyed the Incans for gold.
The British enslaved the Indians for wealth.
Even the space race- fought between the USSR and the US, was greed. Greed to hold the first man in space, first man on the moon, first country to build a space centre and beat their rivals technogoically drove these countries to innovate.
Greed is what makes the world go round. It can be good. It can be bad. Currently, because of the Westen World's economic troubles, many could say Capitalism is bad. But during the boomtimes, everyone would say it was fantastic.
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 01:35 am |
Communism is the theory that everyone is equal and gets the same, true, but don't forget: everyone gets the same no matter how much or how little they contribute. I'm of the basic opinion on fairness that the man who creates the most wealth deserves a share of the total wealth created proportional to his contribution to it (i.e. he keeps the wealth he created). May I return your attention to the lines:
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
"No!" says the communist, "it belongs to everyone."
Do not forget the "greed" we are discussing, personal greed. The "greed" to take hold of the product of your work as your property. The "greed" to place the welfare of yourself and the people you value over the masses. The "greed" to exercise your will as an independent consciousness.
The only way human nature is going to be consonant with a communist system is if people all of the sudden develop a collective consciousness. The problem in human nature isn't greed, it's the ability to think, to value, and to live independently.
In any case, greed doesn't cause desire. Desire causes greed. Greed doesn't cause war. As everyone (except Keynes) knows, war is bad for profits. Death and destruction don't facilitate greed. They destroy wealth. Who wants to pay the money to support an unnecessary war? There are wars of self-defense. There are wars aimed toward pillaging resources and wealth, maybe you are thinking somehow that pillaging is somehow synonymous with capitalism? You're wrong. The whole idea of property means that taking someone else's property is just as wrong as someone taking your property. Greed drives hate, though... care to explain? You've gone off the deep end.
Greed is not problematic. Killing, lying, cheating, and stealing are not somehow synonymous with desiring valuable goods. Furthermore, these are not human nature as they are human actions. The argument is whether or not a man has a right to his property as the product of his work or the product of voluntary exchange.
Finally, Godwin's Law. Nazi (National Socialist) Germany was a socialist state, not even close to a capitalist one. At best, it was corporatist which is still a far cry from a capitalist state. Socialism, fascism and corporatism are still predicated on the idea of collective rights. My arguments are based on the idea that individual rights and individual values are more important than collective rights or collective values. Try harder.
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 02:24 am |
No, "to each according to his needs". You were the one who first quoted Marx. Different people have different needs, therefore they don't all get the same.
War is only bad for the profits of the collective. Many (greedy) individuals can, and do, profit from war. Death and destruction can, and do, facilitate individual greed.
Lastly, Nazi Germany called itself a socialist state, but its principles were fascist which I personally see as an extreme and twisted version of capitalism: elitism taken to the nth degree. I'd also be interested to hear your argument as to how fascism is predicated on the idea of collective rights.
Hugs and respect